Castigating a man for throwing out his estranged wife and minor daughters from the matrimonial home, the Supreme Court on Friday said such behaviour eliminated the basic difference between human and animal.
IMAGE: A view of the Supreme Court of India. Photograph: ANI Photo
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh asked, “What kind of a man you are if you don’t even care for your minor daughters? What wrong have the minor daughters done in coming to this world?”
An irked bench went on, “He was only interested in having multiple children. We cannot allow such a cruel man to enter our court at all. Sara din ghar pe kabhi Saraswati puja and kabhi Laxmi puja. Aur fir yeh sab (you worship Goddesses Saraswati and Laxmi all day, and then you do such things).”
Anguished with the facts of the case, the bench said it would not allow the man to enter court unless he paid the maintenance or part with some agricultural land to his daughters and the wife.
“Ask this man to part with some agricultural land or fixed deposit or maintenance amount in the name of his daughters and then the court may think of passing some favourable order,” the bench told his counsel.
The court said, “What is the difference between an animal and a man who does not take care of minor daughters.”
A trial court convicted the man from Jharkhand for torture and harassment of his estranged wife for dowry.
He was also accused of fraudulently getting her uterus removed and marrying another woman later.
The bench asked the man’s counsel to inform the court the maintenance he was willing to pay the minor daughters and the estranged wife for their future upkeep.
The bench posted the hearing on February 14.
The trial court convicted him in 2015 under Section 498A of IPC (subjecting married women to cruelty) and sentenced him to 2.5 years rigorous imprisonment besides a Rs 5,000 fine.
The case was registered in 2009 and he served 11 months in custody.
On September 24, 2024, the Jharkhand high court brought down the punishment to 1.5 years and enhanced the fine to Rs 1 lakh.
The couple married in 2003 and the estranged wife remained in the matrimonial home for about four months following which she was reportedly tortured over a Rs 50,000 dowry demand.
The high court said several panchayat meetings were convened but the husband was adamant in not following its decisions.
On June 30, 2009, it came on record, he had married another woman, and ousting his estranged wife from the matrimonial home along with the daughters.
The high court said there did not exist medical evidence to show the removal of the estranged wife’s uterus but she supported her allegations.
It also said there was no cogent material to show he had remarried and therefore was not convicted under Section 494 of the IPC (bigamy).
