The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by the woman against her in-laws, noting that there were glaring inconsistencies and discrepancies in her version of events.
The Court noted that the woman had admittedly parted ways from her matrimonial home in 2009, but did not file a complaint against the in-laws until 2013, “just before her husband instituted divorce proceedings.”
On allegations against the judicial officer, the top court questioned why he would demand dowry from the complainant-woman, even if he were inclined to commit such an offence, when he was married to someone else.
Since the woman had also earlier confessed to making a vicious complaint against the judicial officer to the High Court, the top court concluded that her motives were not clean.
The Court also remained unimpressed by allegations that the woman’s mother-in-law had taunted the woman by saying that since she wore a maxi dress, “she should be undressed and made to dance on the street.”
The Court termed this allegation “wholly insufficient to constitute cruelty in terms of Section 498A IPC.”
Source: Barandbench
