ORDER : 1. Since the parties were heard at length, thus, the main revision application itself is being disposed of by this order. 2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 21.07.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2013, whereby he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No. 1228 of 2010, corresponding to T.R. No. 71 of 2013, whereby he convicted the petitioner under section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and pay fine of Rs. 3000/- for committing the offence under section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, further under go simple imprisonment S.I. for three months. 3. It is submitted by Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case, there is no material on record to show that the petitioner has committed the offence under section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the informant has not been proved. Thus, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate, which was upheld by the appellate court can not be sustained. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, Addl. P.P. submits that from the evidence available on record, it is clear that the petitioner has committed offence under section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, because petitioner has harassed and assaulted the informant for demand of dowry. It is submitted that all the witnesses including the independent witnesses have categorically stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the informant solemnised in a temple. Under the said circumstance, marriage has also been proved. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of courts below. 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 6. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the informant was in love with the petitioner and later on she became pregnant. When the aforesaid fact noticed by the family members and other villagers, a panchayat took place, and in the said panchayat, it was decided that petitioner will marry with the informant. Accordingly, they in the village temple. 6. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the informant was in love with the petitioner and later on she became pregnant. When the aforesaid fact noticed by the family members and other villagers, a panchayat took place, and in the said panchayat, it was decided that petitioner will marry with the informant. Accordingly, they in the village temple. It is further alleged that thereafter, petitioner and his family members used to assault the informant and they threatened to drove her out from their house. 7. It appears that the prosecution had examined altogether seven witnesses in support of its case. P.W.1, 2 and 3 are independent witnesses, P.W.4 and 5 are parents of the informant. P.W.6 is the informant herself, whereas P.W.7 is the I.O. 8. From perusal of the deposition of the witnesses of fact, I find that they categorically stated that as per the decision of the panchayat, petitioner and the informant married in the village temple in presence of villagers. From perusal of their cross-examination, I find nothing on which their evidence can be thrown over board. It is worth mentioning that in rebuttal, the petitioner has not adduced any evidence. Under the aforesaid circumstance, I find that the learned courts below had rightly accepted the prosecution evidence that the informant is married wife of the petitioner. 9. Now coming to the not question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find it relevant to quote the provision of Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code for better appreciation:- "498A - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation - For the purpose of this section "cruelty" means:- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 10. The aforesaid provision has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhaskar Lal Sharma & Anr. Vs. Monica reported in 2009 (4) East. Cr. C 34 (SC). In the aforesaid judgment after quoting the provision of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at para 36 that:- Thus, the essential ingredients of the aforementioned provisions are:- (1) A woman must be married. (2) She must be subjected to cruelty. (3) Cruelty must be of the nature of:- (i) any wilful conduct as was likely to drive such woman; (a) to commit suicide; (b) cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, either mental or physical; (ii) harassment of such woman:- (1) with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security. (2) on account of failure of such woman or by any of her relation to meet the unlawful demand. (iii) woman was subjected to such cruelty by:- (1) husband of that woman. (2) any relative of the husband." 11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment, if a married woman subjected to cruelty by his husband or his relative, which may cause danger to her health, either mental or physical, then it can be said that the woman has been subjected to cruelty. 12. In the instant case, P.W.6, who is wife of the petitioner, has categorically stated that she has been assaulted by the petitioner and he also threatened to drove her out from the matrimonial home. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner shows that he wilfully assaulted the informant and to cause injury which may cause danger to her health. 12. In the instant case, P.W.6, who is wife of the petitioner, has categorically stated that she has been assaulted by the petitioner and he also threatened to drove her out from the matrimonial home. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner shows that he wilfully assaulted the informant and to cause injury which may cause danger to her health. Under the said circumstance, I find that the acts and omissions committed by the petitioner comes within the four corners of Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, I find that both the courts below had rightly concluded that the petitioner had committed the offence under section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment of the courts below. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this revision application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 1050/2016 is also dismissed. 14. So far point of sentence is concerned, I find no reason to interfere with the same. Application dismissed.