Question

Ashwin and Ashima were married in February 2020. In March 2020, Ashwin asked Ashima to take care of all their household work, such as cooking, cleaning, and other domestic chores, as he was very busy with his professional responsibilities. Ashima claims that this amounts to treating her like a maid servant and constitutes an offence under Section 498A of the IPC. Applying the Bombay High Court decision, is she likely to succeed?

• A. Yes, since Ashwin had only asked Ashima to do their household work, and not for others.
• B. No, since Ashwin had only asked Ashima to do their household work, and not for others.
• C. Yes, since Ashwin had asked Ashima to do household work for themselves as well as others.
• D. No, since treating a married woman like a maid servant would not amount to an offence under that Section.
• A. No, since Rakesh’s actions were perfectly justifiable for a man who does not get a well-cooked meal.
• B. Yes, since Rakesh’s use of abusive language and throwing the plate at Ashima clearly amount to cruelty.
• C. No, since Rakesh is not her husband, nor is he related to Ashwin.
• D. Yes, since Rakesh was staying at Ashwin and Ashima’s home at the time of the incident.
• A. Yes, since Ashwin has, as we are told, treated her cruelly.
• B. Yes, since Ashwin has been her husband.
• C. No, since Ashwin was understandably upset at Ashima’s behaviour.
• D. No, since she is no longer married to Ashwin.
• A. Ashima is right about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, but she will not get compensation under the PoMWA.
• B. Ashima will get compensation under the PoMWA, but she is not right about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
• C. Ashima will get compensation under the PoMWA, and she is also right about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
• D. Ashima will neither get compensation under the PoMWA, nor is she right about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
• A. Yes, since Section 498A has now been changed, and Shamita’s husband’s actions would now be an offence under the changed Section 498A.
• B. No, since Ashima has been unsuccessful in having Ashwin convicted under that Section in the past.
• C. Yes, since the passing of the Protection of Married Women Act has resulted in Shamita’s husband’s actions being made illegal.
• D. No, since Ashima is only Shamita’s friend, and only the married woman herself can file a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1 (Legal background).
Section 498A of the IPC criminalizes cruelty inflicted by the husband or his relatives on the wife. However, for this section to apply, there must be an act of cruelty, either mental or physical, that harms the wife.
Step 2 (Bombay High Court ruling).
The Bombay High Court held that simply asking a wife to do household chores for the family does not amount to treating her as a "maid servant." The Court emphasized that if the tasks are related to household maintenance and the family, it is not considered an offence.
Step 3 (Analysis of the scenario).
In this case, Ashwin asked Ashima to manage the household duties, which falls under normal family responsibilities. The court found no evidence that this treatment amounted to cruel behavior or that it specifically made Ashima feel like a "maid servant" in the context of the law.
Step 4 (Conclusion).
The facts of the case, in line with the Bombay High Court decision, suggest that Ashwin’s request does not constitute an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
\[ \boxed{\text{No, since treating a married woman like a maid servant would not amount to an offence under that Section. (Option D)}} \]

Answer 2

Step 1 (Understanding Section 498A).
Section 498A of the IPC criminalizes cruelty by the husband or his relatives against a woman. For the offence to apply, the perpetrator must be the husband or a relative of the husband.
Step 2 (Check the relationship).
Rakesh is Ashwin’s friend, not his relative, and not Ashima’s husband. Therefore, Rakesh is not covered under the scope of Section 498A, which limits the application to a woman’s husband or his relatives.
Step 3 (Ruling out abusive actions as an offence under IPC 498A).
Though Rakesh’s actions, such as using abusive language and throwing the plate, are inappropriate and may amount to other forms of legal action (e.g., assault or harassment), they do not meet the criteria for Section 498A, as the offender is not a husband or a relative of the husband.
Step 4 (Conclusion).
Since Rakesh is not related to Ashwin, nor is he Ashima’s husband, Ashima’s claim under Section 498A is unlikely to succeed.
\[ \boxed{\text{No, since Rakesh is not her husband, nor is he related to Ashwin (Option C)}} \]

Answer 3

Step 1 (Consider the scope of Section 498A).
Section 498A of the IPC applies when a married woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives. However, the key factor is that the woman must still be married to the man when the alleged cruelty occurs.
Step 2 (Analyze the timeline).
In this case, Ashima had already divorced Ashwin in November 2020. The cruelty she claims occurred after the divorce. Hence, legally, she is no longer under the protective umbrella of Section 498A for actions occurring post-divorce.
Step 3 (Eliminate other options).
- Option (A) refers to general cruelty, but the law specifically requires the individual to be the woman’s husband at the time.
- Option (B) is irrelevant since Ashwin is not her husband after the divorce.
- Option (C) refers to Ashwin’s emotional distress, but cruelty under Section 498A is defined by the conduct of the husband, not his emotional state.
Step 4 (Conclusion).
Since Ashima and Ashwin are no longer married, Ashima’s claim under Section 498A will not be applicable.
\[ \boxed{\text{No, since she is no longer married to Ashwin (Option D)}} \]

Answer 4

Step 1 (Understand the PoMWA).
The PoMWA applies to actions that occurred within the three years prior to its passage, including actions after the couple is no longer married. Thus, Ashima can claim compensation under the PoMWA for Ashwin’s actions before January 2021.
Step 2 (Recall the definition of the offence under the PoMWA).
Under the PoMWA, asking a married woman to take care of household chores is now considered an offence, regardless of the relationship status. This means Ashima can claim compensation, even though she may no longer be married to Ashwin.
Step 3 (Review the applicability of Section 498A).
Section 498A of the IPC only applies to married couples or those who were married at the time of the offence. Since Ashima and Ashwin are no longer married, Ashwin’s actions do not qualify as an offence under Section 498A, despite being abusive or cruel.
Step 4 (Conclusion).
Ashima is eligible for compensation under the PoMWA, but her claim under Section 498A is not valid, since they are no longer married.
\[ \boxed{\text{Ashima will get compensation under the PoMWA, but she is not right about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC (Option B)}} \]

Answer 5

Step 1 (Understand the change in Section 498A).
In March 2021, Section 498A was amended, expanding the definition of cruelty. The amendment now includes forcing a married woman to perform household chores even for her own family as an act of cruelty, making it an offence under the Section.
Step 2 (Application of the new law to Shamita’s situation).
Since Shamita’s husband is forcing her to do all household work, this falls under the new definition of cruelty as per the updated Section 498A, making it an offence.
Step 3 (Ashima’s past unsuccessful attempt).
Although Ashima was unsuccessful in having Ashwin convicted under Section 498A in the past, this does not affect Shamita’s case under the new law. The previous case is irrelevant because the law has changed.
Step 4 (Conclusion).
Ashima’s advice to Shamita is correct. Shamita’s husband’s actions are now considered an offence under the updated Section 498A.
\[ \boxed{\text{Yes, since Section 498A has now been changed, and Shamita’s husband’s actions would now be an offence under the changed Section 498A. (Option A)}} \]