“Notions of patriarchy and the idea that the woman is a man’s property still prevail in society.”
Upholding a 35-year-old man’s conviction for assaulting his spouse, the Bombay High Court has stated the spouse’s refusal to make tea for husband couldn’t be accepted as provocation for him to assault her, and noticed that spouse is “not a chattel or an object”.
In an order handed earlier this month, Justice Revati Mohite Dere stated “marriage, ideally, is a partnership based on equality”.
But, notions of patriarchy and the concept that the lady is a person’s property nonetheless prevail in society, main a person to suppose that his spouse is his “chattel”, the court docket noticed.
The HC additionally stated the testimony of the couple’s 6-year-old daughter conjures up confidence and can’t be disbelieved.
The court docket upheld the conviction and 10 years’ imprisonment awarded to Santosh Atkar (35), a resident of Pandharpur in Solapur district, by a neighborhood court docket in 2016.
He was discovered responsible on the cost of culpable murder not amounting to homicide.
As per the order, Atkar and his spouse had been having disputes since a while.
On the day of the incident in December 2013, his spouse insisted on going out with out making a cup of tea for him.
The man then struck her with a hammer, injuring her grievously.
As per the case particulars and testimony of the couple’s daughter, Atkar then cleaned the spot of the crime, gave his spouse a shower and took her to hospital.
She succumbed to her accidents after being within the hospital for a couple of week.
The defence argued that Atkar had been provoked into committing the crime as a result of his spouse refused to make tea.
The HC, nevertheless, rejected the argument and held that there existed enough proof, together with testimony of the person’s daughter, to show the costs towards him.
“The deceased, by refusing to make tea for the appellant (Atkar), by no stretch of imagination, can be said to have offered grave and sudden provocation for the appellant to assault her, much less, such a brutal assault,” it stated.
“It would not be out of place to observe that a wife is not a chattel or an object,” the HC stated.
Such instances mirror the imbalance of gender and skewed patriarchy, the socio-cultural milieu one has grown up in, which frequently seeps right into a conjugal relationship, it stated.
The court docket stated an imbalance of gender roles exists in society, the place the spouse is predicted to do all of the family chores.
“Emotional labour in a marriage is also expected to be done by the wife. Coupled with these imbalances in the equation, is the imbalance of expectation and subjugation,” Justice Mohite Dere stated.
Social situations of ladies additionally make them handover themselves to their spouses, she stated.
“Thus, men, in such cases, consider themselves as primary partners and their wives, chattel,” the decide stated.
She stated it’s unlucky that such”medieval notion” of spouse being the husband’s property nonetheless exists, and the spouse is predicted to do what her husband wished her to do.
“Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased by refusing to make tea for the appellant offered grave and sudden provocation, is ludicrous, clearly untenable and unsustainable and as such deserves to be rejected,” the HC stated whereas dismissing the person’s attraction towards his conviction and sentence.
The defence additionally raised questions on the testimony of the couple’s daughter, saying it was recorded after a delay of some days and it couldn’t be believed.
But, the excessive court docket rejected the argument and stated, “Her testimony inspires confidence and cannot be disbelieved.
There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness to disbelieve her presence in the house at the relevant time.” She (the daughter) is a pure witness, who awoke on listening to the quarrel between her dad and mom and witnessed the assault on her mom by her father, and noticed her father clear the spot quickly thereafter, the court docket added.