The decision that a divorce petition filed by a husband cannot be taken as an act of cruelty was upheld by the Bombay High Court through Justice Vibha Kankanwadi in the case of Anmol Madhukar Divekar v. State of Maharashtra (ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.367 OF 2022)
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The informant, the applicant’s wife, claimed that during the course of their marriage, the applicant sought ten tolas of gold and high-quality furnishings from her. Furthermore, it was reported that the in-laws had been tormenting her since the day of the marriage. They even verbally abused with respect to the dowry.
In addition to the foregoing, it was revealed that the applicant’s mother-in-law used to send her texts claiming that the informant is an unattractive looking girl, and as a result, the applicant began mentally torturing her. The informant had to leave her employment due to medical issues, and when she returned to India, her father-in-law began telling her that because of her unemployment, she should provide Rs 50,00,000, or divorce the applicant. In addition to this, she was harassed and thrown out of the residence in 2021.
Following this, the Additional Sessions Judge was approached by the husband. However, the husband’s application was refused, and it was said that the divorce petition was being assessed. Furthermore, it was indicated that if the divorce petition was not submitted, there was always the prospect of a reconciliation. However, the spouse went a step farther by submitting a divorce petition, which amounted to cruelty.
It was claimed that the applicants’ attitudes were hostile and that they had handled the informant cruelly. It was also said that if the applicants were released on bail, there was a great potential that the prosecution witnesses would be tampered with.
The Court said that the husband’s filing of a divorce suit cannot be considered cruelty or a reason for rejecting the anticipatory bail. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the informant’s valuable as well as general objects were claimed to be with the applicant. In reality, she may obtain it under the terms of the Domestic Violence Act, and it would not have to be seized. In light of the foregoing, the application was allowed.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY REETI SHETTY