New Delhi – In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court of India severally reprimanded a man from Jharkhand for displacing his estranged wife and minor daughters from his house. It said this kind of behavior is lessening the basic distinction between man and beast and hence amounts to cruelty.
Sub Court’s Reprieve
The mixed ruling denounced the man for his ways by Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh. It focused on the disparity between his religious practices and his treatment of family.
“He was only interested in having multiple children. We cannot allow such a cruel man to enter our court. He engages in religious rituals all day, yet behaves in this manner.” The bench further questioned, “What kind of a man are you if you don’t even care for your minor daughters? What wrong have the minor daughters done in coming to this world?”
The man in question was convicted following a trial court for committing acts of torture and causing extreme mental agony to his estranged wife. He also faced charges of conspiring to remove her uterus and proceeding to marry again, leading to the abandonment of his wife and daughters.
The apology of a guilty man
No relief to the man could have come from the Supreme Court unless he showed he was responsible toward his family. The bench asserted, “Ask this man to divide some agricultural land or fixed deposit or maintenance money for his daughters and wife, and only then the court will think of passing good orders.” The court emphasized that one must provide for one’s family, especially minor children, and asked, “What is the difference between an animal and a man who does not take care of minor daughters?”
Implications for Women’s Rights
The judgment sends a clear message against any detrimental attitude of the judiciary towards the protection of women and children. It exposes the intolerance of the legal system towards domestic abuse and the neglect of familial responsibilities. Amplified by the most stringent language, the court has sent out a strong caveat for such inhuman deeds and further put into context the significance of preserving the dignity and rights of women and children within a family paradigm.
Related Precedents
The Supreme Court has been very vocal in protecting women’s rights concerning domestic disputes for some time now. For instance, in a 2020 ruling, the court specified that a married woman cannot be evicted from her marital home by a senior citizen tribunal based purely on the rationale that the land belongs to the in-laws.
The bench observed that the right of a woman to stay in a shared household de facto cannot possibly be subsumed by court-business on expedited eviction done by in-laws. This judgment reconciled the Domestic Violence Act and Senior Citizens Act, ensuring that application of one law does not compromise the protection offered by the other.
A condemnation from the Supreme Court resoundingly reiterates the legal and moral duties that all has towards family members. While the judiciary shall tilt in the direction of doing justice and humanity, it reaffirms its strength against enforcing violence or depriving dignity and basic human rights.
