Marital woes: A still from Provoked, based on the real story of an abused wife, Kiranjit Ahluwalia

Two years back, Sumana (name changed) was married to a man who was from an affluent family in Mumbai. After her marriage, Sumana — who lived in Durgapur with her parents —moved to her new address in Mumbai with her husband and in-laws. Once there, all hell broke loose. Her husband and in-laws began to torture her, demanding additional dowry. Sumana’s father had already given her Rs 4 lakh worth of gold ornaments, apart from other household items.

The torture became unbearable and she was finally forced to leave her in-laws’ home after the birth of her son. Her in-laws refused to let her take her son. All alone, Sumana put up at a family friend’s house in Mumbai before her parents arrived to take her back to Durgapur.

On March 1, 2006, Sumana filed a case against the accused persons under Sections 498A (subjecting a married woman to cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) before the magistrate in Durgapur. The magistrate admitted her petition under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) treating her complaint petition as an FIR and asked the police to investigate the matter.

But further harassment awaited Sumana. The accused, in turn, filed a case under Section 482 (inherent power of the High Court to set aside a lower court’s orders) of CrPC against Sumana at the Calcutta High Court. And on March 22, 2007, in a judgement that could perhaps spell doom for hundreds of women subjected to similar torture, Calcutta High Court quashed the case filed by Sumana on the simple ground of jurisdiction.

Justice Pravendu Narayan Sinha of Calcutta High Court held, “Since the incident arose in Mumbai, one cannot take the aid of Sections 179, 181(4) and 184 of the CrPC to invoke the jurisdiction of the magistrate in Durgapur for investigation and trial.” Sumana’s husband and in-laws breathed a sigh of relief as Sumana went into depression.

“This judgement,” believes Amiya Kumar Chakrabarti, a practicing lawyer at the apex court, “will have far reaching consequences. It will be a blessing for some and a curse for others.”

While Section 184 deals with the place of trial of offences that can be tried together, Section 179 of CrPC states, “When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such consequence has ensued.” On the other hand, Section 181(4) of CrPC highlights that any offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust may be enquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. The local jurisdiction also comes into play if any part of the property that is the subject of the offence was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused persons.

“In view of all these Sections, the judgement will help those who were previously harassed by other parties filing false cases in another part of the country,” says Alok Kumar Mitra, senior lawyer, Calcutta High Court. He cites an instance where a husband who lived in Mumbai filed a false defamation case in Mumbai against his wife and his in-laws who lived in Bolpur — out of sheer spite.

The court issued arrest warrants against the accused who had not attended any hearings in the court as they were not even aware of the case filed against them. Their daughter, too, remained in the dark. It was only when the Bolpur police arrived at her parents’ house to arrest her parents that she learned of her husband’s harassment ploy.

“Lodging a false case to cause harassment is rampant in our country. In such instances, victims get drained financially trying to contest the cases in some other state. Besides, they are also required to be physically present before the court so they need to make a trip to the other state off and on, which can be very taxing,” observes Shivaji Mitra, lawyer, Calcutta High Court. “For such victims like the couple and their daughter in Bolpur, this order is definitely a boon,” he emphasises.

However, there are a few legal experts who believe that the Calcutta High Court judgement will cause immense trouble for tortured women who are married in states and countries outside their maternal home. “In so many instances, a woman’s marital home is in a state where she doesn’t have any relatives or friends to fall back on. If she has no support system, there is nothing she can do when tortured. It becomes impossible for her to lodge and then fight a case in a state where she has no base,” says criminal lawyer Ramkrishna Roychowdhury of the Alipore police court.

In Sumana’s case, though the incident took place in Mumbai and she was assaulted in Mumbai, the repercussions were felt in Durgapur, where the victim was examined by a doctor to prove that she was assaulted, Joymalya Bagchi, counsel for Sumana, had argued in court. He had also highlighted the fact that in accordance with Section 181(4), the jewellery was entrusted to the accused in Durgapur and they subsequently took it with them to Mumbai. “After she was assaulted in Mumbai, Sumana’s physical examination was conducted in Durgapur, so part of the entire incident took place in Durgapur and therefore on those grounds the case could be filed in Durgapur,” Bagchi had said. Unfortunately, the argument failed to convince the judge and as he quashed the case, the verdict went against Sumana.

Such landmark judgements can often turn the tide against women. And then, all they can fall back on is fate.