New Delhi: Observing that women’s in-laws should not be sued for atrocities because they did not control her rude husband and advise him to “adjust” with him, the Supreme Court allowed a request for a NRI who was restrained from leaving the country after a complaint was submitted against him and other family members by his wife.
It also said taking custody of jewelry for safety cannot be considered atrocities under the IPC 498A section.
Indira Banerjee Judge Judge and J K Maheshwari modified the command of the judge’s judge by NRI directed not to leave the country without a court nod.
The court noted that there was no major charge against it and “there was only a general omnibus allegation that all the defendants destroyed the life of the complainant with representation, concealment, etc.” errors.
“There are even accusations against applicants for each request or threat or torture for dowry or property.
Failure to control adult siblings, live independently or give advice to the complainant to adjust to avoid revenge from accusing number 1 (husband)) cannot form The atrocity in the applicant’s section in the sense of part 498a IPC, “Bench said.
“The complainant did not provide details of the jewelry which was allegedly taken by the mother-in-law and brother-in-law.
There was no whisper whether there was a jewelry lying with the applicant.
It was not even alleged that the applicant was forcibly picked up or misused a complainant jewelry or refused to restore the same thing though There is a request.
Taking custody of jewelry for safety cannot be considered atrocities in the sense of part 498a, “he said.
The complainants have submitted a case of dowry abuse against her husband and her in-laws after coming to India and the High Court in the order while holding them to leave the country.
Finally that there was no substantial accusation of it, the brother-in-law moved Punjab and Haryana HC who refused his request, after which he moved the Supreme Court.
The court, after checking the accusation, passed his beneficial command and noted that the conflicting husband and wife had been compromised.
“From the complaint itself, it is very clear that the applicant does not live in the same place as his brother, become a complainant husband.
Produces in the Petitioner in court below, they don’t even live in the same place.
The applicant works in Texas while his brother live and works In North Carolina, “he said.
“There is nothing specific to the Petitioner except unclear suspicion that the applicant and mother, namely, the mother-in-law of the complainant, save the jewelry.
The only other accusation is that the applicant did nothing when the complainant had spoken for him about his brother’s behavior and behavior.
…
in whatever, the compromise deed has now been executed between the complainants and her husband, “he said.
Take jewelry to be secured not atrocities: SC
