Section 354-D of IPC is reproduced at the end of this answer. It defines the offence of “stalking”. As can be seen from this section, it is defined in wide and general terms and there is no exception in respect of the husband.
However, generally speaking, such conduct on the part of the husband may not amount to stalking since it may be covered in the clause (iii) of the Proviso to sub-section (1) which says that “in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified”. Moreover, even the ingredients of main definition, such as “disinterest” and “foster personal interaction” may not be relevant in such a scenario.
So, generally speaking, a complaint given by wife against her husband under Section 354-D of IPC may not stand the test of law even if the definition of this section is quite general and wide. At the same time, there may be certain situations, such as, for example, where the husband and wife are living separately under a judicial order, such a complaint given by wife against her husband may perhaps be validly covered under Section 354-D of IPC.
Section 354-D of IPC:
“354-D. Stalking.—(1) Any man who—
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,
commits the offence of stalking:
Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that—
(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or
(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.
(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
