More Coverage
Twitter Coverage
Satyaagrah
Written on
Satyaagrah
Written on
Satyaagrah
Written on
Satyaagrah
Written on
Satyaagrah
Written on
JOIN SATYAAGRAH SOCIAL MEDIA
"At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst": Justice P Velmurugan, Madras HC observed that "Evidence of woman's relatives in matrimonial dispute can't be brushed aside terming them interested witnesses"

The Madras High Court recently observed that evidence adduced by victim-woman's relatives in matrimonial disputes cannot be brushed aside by terming them as interested witnesses [P Senthil v State].
|
Single-judge Justice P Velmurugan said that in matrimonial disputes, it is usually the family members who would know about incidents which happen within the four walls of the house.
Moreover, such family members would usually refrain from unnecessarily giving out information about family disputes especially between the husband and wife in the court, even if they know about the incidents, the Court said.
"In the matrimonial disputes, only the family members can notice the incidents, which occurred in the home i.e. within the four wall and they can only come forward to give evidence and the third party, even if they also know, will not be ready to give evidence and they would think that it is a family dispute and the husband and wife will quarrel each other today and tomorrow would join together why should they poke their nose unnecessarily in the family dispute especially between the husband and wife," the judgment stated.
In the present case, the Court observed that the relatives (witnesses) had clearly spoken about the cruelty caused by the husband against the woman (wife) and, therefore, their evidence could not be simply brushed aside contending that they are interested witnesses.
The Court, therefore, upheld the appellant-husband's conviction for cruelty awarded by the trial court.
|
The case arose after a complaint was filed by the victim-wife against her husband and his family for cruelty with other offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The trial judge after taking into consideration arguments advanced on either side, by a judgment dated December 16, 2019, acquitted all the accused and convicted the appellant-husband only for the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of IPC.
The trial judge sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ₹5,000 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.
The husband moved the High Court in an appeal against the said judgment of conviction.
The counsel for the appellant contended that the trial judge convicted him solely on the basis of evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses.
It was argued that the prosecution witnesses were interested parties and hearsay witnesses, whose testimony cannot be relied upon by the trial court for convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 498A.
It was also pointed out there was a delay of nearly 20 days in lodging the complaint since the day when the alleged cruelty was meted out to the complainant-wife.
The single-judge refused to entertain the contentions put forth by the appellant and noted that a delay of 20 days in lodging the complaint could not be a reason to acquit the appellant since it was natural for a newly married woman to take time to disclose about the cruelty to others.
A newly married woman would not rush to the police station to lodge complaints and her parents too would only attempt to settle the dispute at the first instance, the Court added.
The judge further noted that the wife had categorically stated about the incidents and her relatives had also corroborated the same therefore there was cogent evidence on the commission of offence under Section 498A.
"In the result, the criminal appeal stands dismissed as devoid of merit and substance. The trial Court is directed to secure the appellant to undergo remaining period of sentence if any," the court observed.
Being an appellate Court, it is important to reappreciate the entire evidence independently and give the finding, Court said.
"Accordingly this Court, being an appellate Court, while re-visiting the entire evidence found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and there is no sound reason or ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction made by the trial Court," court held
Appellant was represented by Advocate K Balakrishnan while prosecution was represented by advocate S Sugendran.
References:
Support Us
Satyagraha was born from the heart of our land, with an undying aim to unveil the true essence of Bharat. It seeks to illuminate the hidden tales of our valiant freedom fighters and the rich chronicles that haven't yet sung their complete melody in the mainstream.
While platforms like NDTV and 'The Wire' effortlessly garner funds under the banner of safeguarding democracy, we at Satyagraha walk a different path. Our strength and resonance come from you. In this journey to weave a stronger Bharat, every little contribution amplifies our voice. Let's come together, contribute as you can, and champion the true spirit of our nation.
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
ICICI Bank of Satyaagrah | Razorpay Bank of Satyaagrah | PayPal Bank of Satyaagrah - For International Payments |
If all above doesn't work, then try the LINK below:
Please share the article on other platforms
DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text. The website also frequently uses non-commercial images for representational purposes only in line with the article. We are not responsible for the authenticity of such images. If some images have a copyright issue, we request the person/entity to contact us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and we will take the necessary actions to resolve the issue.
Related Articles
- "Some judges are like umpires who believe they won the game": Madras High Court, "If temples are going to perpetuate violence, then their existence has no meaning, better to close down those temples. The whole purpose of having a temple is of no use"
- "चलो फिर से": Baba Ramdev claims "crores of people are dying" from toxic modern medicines, comparing their deadly impact to British rule, Islamic invasions, and revolutions by Lenin, Marx, and Mao, despite Supreme Court warnings against fearmongering
- "No man is ever as anti-feminist as a really feminine woman": A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli noted that income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income of parties in matrimonial disputes: Supreme Court
- "Man versus dog: in this round of alimony Olympics, Fido takes the gold!": In an unprecedented ruling, Mumbai's court insists that man's best friend requires maintenance too, husband now legally obliged to pay estranged wife's canine companions' upkeep
- Pastor Father Lawrence has been given a life sentence by a POCSO court in Mumbai for the horrific crime of sodomizing a 13-year-old
- "You can tell a lot about a civilization by the quality of people found in its jails": President Murmu’s caution on overcrowding of prisons is a wake-up call to the executive & judiciary, says "Hope you understand what I said and what I refrained from”
- "अब आयो ऊंट पहाड़ नीचे": A Bareilly court convicts Mohammed Alim for Love Jihad, tricking a woman into conversion and abortion, giving him life in prison, penalizing his father, and warning of conversion threats like in Pakistan and Bangladesh
- Amit Shah announces transformative shifts in India's criminal laws, aiming to eradicate colonial legacies and emphasize justice over punishment, with tech integration & comprehensive consultations, Shah envisions an efficient, citizen-centric legal system
- "Best advice I ever received was to give advice only when asked for it": State does not owe loyalty to any one religion and the Constitution requires that religious majority in the country shouldn’t enjoy any preferential treatment, Justice BV Nagarathna
- "Unheard of:" Bombay High Court deprecated Maharashtra government for keeping a 21-year-old student Nikhil Bhamre in jail for a social media post that did not even name NCP Chief Sharad Pawar
- "If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable": Supreme Court & High Court Litigant Association filed complaint against Justice Chandrachud accusing him of passing order benefiting his son’s client, Bar Council dismisses claims
- "If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable": Secular Court of India - “You can hold Pooja somewhere else" denying permission for Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations at disputed Idgah Maidan in Bengaluru, Kapil Sibal fought and won
- Mentally-challenged Tamil Hindu man executed for a drug offense by Singapore whereas India's Supreme Court shockingly commutes death sentence of child rapist and murderer Mohd Firoz
- Vinayak Damodar Savarkar – A Misunderstood Legacy
- Gender Biased Indian Law: Delhi High Court observed that in India, expenditure borne by brother in supporting his divorced sister must be taken into account while passing an order of maintenance in favour of his wife