GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has ruled that disputes between a husband and wife, or a husband's demand for divorce, do not amount to cruelty as defined under Sections 85 and 86 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The court, therefore, quashed the chargesheet and proceedings initiated by a woman against her husband and his family.
ALSO READ: Brown-Cheeked Rail & Baillon’s Crake Spotted At Guwahati’s Deepor Beel
A bench comprising Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia observed that the term "cruelty" under Sections 85 and 86 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) must be understood in the specific context of the provision, which may differ from other statutory interpretations. The ruling came in response to a petition filed by the husband, and his family members, challenging the criminal proceedings initiated against them by his wife.
According to the woman, she married him in February 2012 and was subjected to mental harassment soon after. She alleged that her husband, along with his parents and sister, pressured her to divorce him, repeatedly stating that she was not his choice and that he did not wish to continue the marriage. She further claimed that their behaviour led to her developing multiple health issues.
In addition to these allegations, the woman claimed that a domestic servant employed by the petitioners, made obscene and sexually explicit phone calls to her. She asserted that the petitioners were responsible for these calls, as the servant lacked proficiency in using mobile phones. Following an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet under Sections 85 and 86 and Section 67 of the IT Act against the husband and his family.
In July 2023, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Tinsukia, took cognisance of the offences. The accused then approached the High Court, seeking the quashing of the charges. Senior Advocate Bhaskar Dutta, representing the petitioners, argued that Sections 85 and 86 BNS was specifically introduced to prevent the abuse of married women for dowry-related offences. Since there were no allegations of dowry demands in this case, he contended that the charges did not apply.
Regarding the allegations under Section 67 of the IT Act, Dutta further argued that the complaint itself stated that the explicit messages originated from the domestic servant Rupesh’s phone, yet the police had not charged him. On the other hand, Advocate G.N. Sahewalla, representing the woman, maintained that she should be given the opportunity to prove her case in a trial court.
Upon examining the facts, the High Court found that the woman's FIR contained no allegations of dowry demands. The court noted that her primary grievance was that her husband did not like her and that his family pressured her to seek a divorce. Furthermore, the bench observed that the police had not filed a chargesheet against Rupesh, despite the obscene messages being traced back to his mobile phone.
In light of these findings, the court ruled that the allegations under Sections 85 and 86 BNS did not constitute cruelty within the legal framework of the provision, and that the charge under Section 67 of the IT Act was based on mere suspicion.
Consequently, the court allowed the plea and quashed the chargesheet and the entire proceedings against the petitioners.
