Husband, relatives body-shaming wife is cruelty under Section 498A IPC: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that the husband or his family members body shaming the wife would prima facie amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which penalises marital cruelty. .Justice A Badharudeen said that acts of body shaming would be covered by explanation (a) to Section 498A of the IPC which provides that any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, is cruelty."Holding the law as above, when the overt acts herein, at the instance of the petitioner (accused), are evaluated, body shaming and doubting the medical degree of the de facto complainant are the allegations against the petitioner. The overt acts, at the instance of the petitioner, prima facie to be read as wilful conduct which are of such nature to cause injury to the mental and physical health of the woman dealt under explanation (a) to Section 498A of the IPC," the Court said in its judgment dated November 15..The judgment was passed in a case stemming from a woman's complaint of marital cruelty by her husband, his father and his brother's wife.The brother's wife moved the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against her under Section 498A of the IPC on the basis of this complaint. The primary argument raised on her behalf was that since she is the wife of the husband's elder brother, she would not come under the purview of the term "relative" under Section 498A.It was contened that the term only includes parents, children, brothers, sisters and spouse. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in U Suvetha v. State & Ors. to bolster this contention.However, the Court noted that the cited case did not deal with the brother's wife. It also noted that in this case the brother's wife was residing in the same matrimonial home as the complainant-woman.After going through judgments and other statutes which deal with the term "relative", the Court deemed it appropriate to reject this contention."When the married woman starts to reside at the matrimonial home, where the siblings of the husband are also residing along with their spouses, it cannot be held that the spouses of the siblings would not fall under the definition of ‘relative’ for the purpose of Section 498A of the IPC. In such situations, no doubt, the relative of a husband includes the residents at the matrimonial home related to the husband, viz., mother, father, husband or wife of the individual, or a son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece of the individual, or a grandson or grand-daughter of the individual, or the spouse of the siblings of the husband residing at the matrimonial home," the Court said in its judgment. .The relative of a husband includes the residents at the matrimonial home related to the husband....The second argument raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the only allegation against her was that of body shaming. The Court noted from the first information statement that the allegation is that the petitioner used to deride the complainant for her body shape and tell her that her husband could find other women who are more beautiful and more suitable than her. It also noted that the petitioner used to question the veracity of her medical degree.These allegations would prima facie attract the offence of marital cruelty under Section 498A, the Court concluded. Accordingly, it dismissed the petition. .The petitioner was represented by advocates Thareeq Anver K, K Salma Jennath, K Shamsudheen, KC Khamarunnisa, Rassal Janardhanan A, Arun Chand, Shahnoy Shaji and Govind G Nair.The complainant was represented by advocates PS Binu and K Seena. .[Read Judgment]