Live
- Common Mistakes to Avoid When Hiring Executive Manufacturing Recruiters in Mexico
- Thila Taila Abhishekah Pooja to Lord Shaneswara
- Priyanka Gandhi says BJP talking of 'tinkering' with Constitution with PM’s nod
- LS polls: PM Modi says BJP-NDA leading 2-0 after first two phases
- Plea in Madras HC seeks special polling arrangement for names 'missing' from Coimbatore voter list
- Ex CM KCR Bus tour on 4 th day
- Youth National Games 2024 kick-start in Delhi; over 5,000 athletes from 15 states vying for top honours
- TN Police warn people against fraudsters using AI-based voice cloning
- L-G office blames Saurabh Bharadwaj for delay in enhancing MCD Commissioner's financial powers
- ICICI Bank posts 17 per cent rise in Q4 net profit at Rs 10,707cr; declares dividend of Rs 10 per share
Delhi court upholds cruelty, theft charges against husband, in-laws, rejects minimal stay duration argument
A Delhi court has upheld the decision of a magisterial court to frame charges of cruelty and theft against the husband and in-laws of a woman.
New Delhi: A Delhi court has upheld the decision of a magisterial court to frame charges of cruelty and theft against the husband and in-laws of a woman.
The court said that there is no legal requirement specifying a minimum duration for a married woman to stay at her matrimonial home before filing a complaint against her in-laws for cruelty.
Additional Sessions Judge, Sunil Gupta, addressed a revision petition filed by the woman's husband and in-laws challenging the magisterial court's order.
The charges under sections 498A (cruelty) and 379 (theft) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were based on allegations that the woman was subjected to dowry demands, physical abuse, and jewelry theft.
Highlighting a crucial legal principle, the judge stated: "At the stage of framing of charge, the court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused."
The defence's argument, saying no harassment due to the complainant's brief 11-day stay at her matrimonial home, was dismissed by the court.
It clarified that there's no legal stipulation for a minimum stay duration before filing a complaint under section 498A.
The court also addressed concerns about the differently-abled brother-in-law facing charges under IPC section 379, saying that the determination of his physical capability would be assessed during the trial through evidence presented by both parties.
Ultimately, the sessions court dismissed the revision petition, asserting, "There is no illegality in the impugned order so as to justify interference."
