TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Conviction for Cruelty u/s 498A IPC Overturned; Bigamy Conviction u/s 494 IPC Upheld.</h1> <h3>Manju Ram Kalita Versus State of Assam</h3> Manju Ram Kalita Versus State of Assam - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the appellant's second marriage.2. Applicability of Section 498A IPC regarding cruelty.Summary:Issue 1: Validity of the Appellant's Second MarriageThe appellant was charged u/s 494 IPC for marrying Smt. Ranju Sarma while his first marriage with Smt. Minati Das (Kalita) was subsisting. The Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court all found the second marriage valid. The Supreme Court upheld these concurrent findings, stating that re-appreciation of evidence by the higher court is not warranted unless the findings are perverse. The Court emphasized that it should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the lower courts if done in good faith and based on relevant material.Issue 2: Applicability of Section 498A IPCThe appellant was also charged u/s 498A IPC for subjecting his wife to cruelty. The complainant alleged physical and mental torture, leading her to leave the matrimonial home in 1993. The FIR was filed in 1997. The Supreme Court examined the definition of 'cruelty' u/s 498A IPC, which includes any willful conduct likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury. The Court noted that cruelty must be continuous or in close proximity to the complaint.The Trial Court found no evidence of harassment intended to drive the complainant to suicide or fulfill illegal demands. The Appellate Court and High Court also did not find continuous cruelty after 1993. The Supreme Court concluded that the findings of the lower courts were more relevant to matrimonial disputes rather than criminal charges u/s 498A IPC. Therefore, the conviction u/s 498A IPC was set aside, but the conviction and sentence u/s 494 IPC were maintained.Conclusion:The appeal was partially allowed, setting aside the conviction u/s 498A IPC while maintaining the conviction and sentence u/s 494 IPC.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
