Unemployed Husband May Have Had “Inferiority Complex” From Working Wife: Karnataka HC Upholds Conviction U/S 498A IPC

The Karnataka High Court recently upheld a husband’s conviction for harassing his wife under Section 498-A (Cruelty) IPC, indicating that he may have developed an inferiority complex.

While dismissing H D Naveen’s revision petition, a single judge bench led by Justice Ramachandra D.Huddar stated, “Accused No.1 is unemployed. Perhaps he has an inferiority complex because his wife is a BA., B.Ed. graduate who works as a teacher. That must have caused accused No. 1 and his family members to harass the complainant physically and mentally by making unlawful demands.”

Naveen had challenged the trial court order dated 9.11.2012, which was affirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in an order dated 31.7.2014, convicting and sentencing him to two years in prison and a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default sentence for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.

The wife said that they married in 2007. She moved to the matrimonial house after the marriage to live with accused no. 1. The other suspects identified in the complaint, in total seven people, were residing at the said house. It was claimed that the accused numbers 1 through 7 stated in the complaint used to ill-treat and harass the complainant both physically and mentally on a daily basis. They allegedly assaulted her and abused her in filthy terms on occasion. As a result, she filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioner contended that the prosecution’s evidence contains substantial flaws, improvements, and contradictions. Furthermore, the complaint was filed 5 months and 10 days late.

After reviewing the testimony of the complainant and other witnesses, the bench concluded that the evidence of the complainant, her brother, and a relative shows that the accused subjected the complainant to physical and mental abuse.

“Fortunately, there was no abatement to commit suicide in this case, but other factors regarding the proof of ill-treatment and harassment have been spoken to by PW.1 as the victim. Cruelty for the purpose of offence does not have to be physical. In some cases, mental torture or deviant behaviours may constitute cruelty or harassment.”

“Mental cruelty, of course, varies from person to person, depending on the intensity and degree of endurance, some may meet with courage and others suffer silently, to some, it may be unbearable and a weak person may consider ending one’s life,” it added.

The Court determined that the allegations presented against the accused were true and that there was no factual or legal error in the lower courts’ rulings.

The court rejected the accused’s argument for leniency by issuing a fine instead of a prison sentence after being found guilty. “These days, there is an increase in the offence against the married woman by the husband and his relatives. Because of the rise in such acts, Section 498A of the IPC was added in 1983 to protect married women against cruelty by their husbands or relatives,” it stated.

Noting that there was no attempt made by him, according to the State’s argument, to bring his wife back to enjoy a happy marital life, Court accused No.1 lacks love and affection for his wife.

As a result, it dismissed the petition and ordered the trial court to take proper steps to ensure the accused served the remainder of his sentence.