<p>The Supreme Court has said taking custody of daughter-in-law’s jewellery for safety cannot constitute cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.</p>.<p>Similarly, failure to control an adult brother, living independently, or giving advice to adjust to sister-in-law to avoid retaliation cannot come within the definition of cruelty to the bride, a bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and J K Maheshwari said.</p>.<p>Section 498 A refers to husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. </p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/dowry-should-be-given-expansive-meaning-to-include-any-demand-sc-1070750.html" target="_blank">Dowry should be given expansive meaning to include any demand: SC</a></strong></p>.<p>A case was lodged by a woman against her husband and in-laws for subjecting her to cruelty.</p>.<p>The apex court’s observations came while hearing an appeal against an order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing a plea by a man seeking permission to return to the US, where he is employed.</p>.<p>The high court had rejected the man’s prayer to leave the country as he was arrayed as an accused along with his elder brother and parents under sections Sections 323 (voluntary causing hurt), 34 (common intention), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating) 498A and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.</p>.<p>Going through factual matrix, the court pointed out the complainant (daughter-in-law) has not given any particulars of the jewellery that had allegedly been taken by her mother-in-law and brother-in- law.</p>.<p>There is not a whisper of whether any jewellery is lying with the petitioner, it said.</p>.<p>There is only a general omnibus allegation that all the accused ruined the life of the complainant by misrepresentation, concealment, etc. The appellant is not liable for the acts of cruelty, or any other wrongful and/or criminal acts on the part of his parents or brother, the court said.</p>.<p>The top court said considering the nature of the allegations, it is not understood how and why the petitioner should have been detained in India. </p>.<p><strong>Check out DH's latest videos</strong></p>
<p>The Supreme Court has said taking custody of daughter-in-law’s jewellery for safety cannot constitute cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.</p>.<p>Similarly, failure to control an adult brother, living independently, or giving advice to adjust to sister-in-law to avoid retaliation cannot come within the definition of cruelty to the bride, a bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and J K Maheshwari said.</p>.<p>Section 498 A refers to husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. </p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/dowry-should-be-given-expansive-meaning-to-include-any-demand-sc-1070750.html" target="_blank">Dowry should be given expansive meaning to include any demand: SC</a></strong></p>.<p>A case was lodged by a woman against her husband and in-laws for subjecting her to cruelty.</p>.<p>The apex court’s observations came while hearing an appeal against an order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing a plea by a man seeking permission to return to the US, where he is employed.</p>.<p>The high court had rejected the man’s prayer to leave the country as he was arrayed as an accused along with his elder brother and parents under sections Sections 323 (voluntary causing hurt), 34 (common intention), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating) 498A and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.</p>.<p>Going through factual matrix, the court pointed out the complainant (daughter-in-law) has not given any particulars of the jewellery that had allegedly been taken by her mother-in-law and brother-in- law.</p>.<p>There is not a whisper of whether any jewellery is lying with the petitioner, it said.</p>.<p>There is only a general omnibus allegation that all the accused ruined the life of the complainant by misrepresentation, concealment, etc. The appellant is not liable for the acts of cruelty, or any other wrongful and/or criminal acts on the part of his parents or brother, the court said.</p>.<p>The top court said considering the nature of the allegations, it is not understood how and why the petitioner should have been detained in India. </p>.<p><strong>Check out DH's latest videos</strong></p>
