The Kerala High Court, in a detailed judgment delivered by Justice A. Badharudeen on November 15, 2024, held that acts of body shaming by a sister-in-law constitute “cruelty” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court clarified that mental harassment is sufficient to invoke the provision, even in the absence of physical violence. This judgment adds significant nuance to the interpretation of cruelty in matrimonial disputes.
Background
The case arose from allegations made by a woman against her husband, father-in-law, and sister-in-law. The complainant, a medical professional, alleged that her sister-in-law, married to her husband’s elder brother, engaged in persistent acts of mental harassment. These included comments about the complainant’s body shape, implying she was unsuitable for her husband, and questioning the authenticity of her medical degree.
The complainant further alleged that her sister-in-law actively encouraged other family members to scrutinize her qualifications, creating a hostile environment at her matrimonial home. This pattern of harassment, according to the complainant, forced her to leave the matrimonial home in February 2022. Subsequently, the police registered a case under Section 498A IPC, which penalizes cruelty by the husband or his relatives.
The petitioner, the sister-in-law, sought to quash the criminal proceedings by filing a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She contended that:
1. She did not qualify as a “relative” under Section 498A IPC.
2. Her actions did not meet the legal definition of cruelty under the section.
Legal Issues
1. Scope of “Relative” under Section 498A IPC
The petitioner argued that her marital relationship with the complainant’s brother-in-law did not make her a “relative” for the purposes of Section 498A IPC. This raised the question of whether in-laws residing in the matrimonial home fall within the section’s ambit.
2. Definition of “Cruelty” under Section 498A IPC
The court examined whether the alleged actions of body shaming and derogatory comments constituted mental harassment severe enough to amount to cruelty under the provision.
Court Observations
Justice A. Badharudeen analyzed the term “relative” as interpreted in the Supreme Court judgment U. Suvetha v. State and clarified its applicability in the context of Section 498A IPC. The court observed that “relative” includes persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption. The judge stated that individuals residing in a matrimonial home who significantly interact with the complainant, such as a sister-in-law, can be considered relatives under this section.
On the question of cruelty, the court referred to the explanations appended to Section 498A IPC:
– Explanation (a): Cruelty includes any wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury to her physical or mental health.
– Explanation (b): Harassment with the intent of coercing the woman to meet unlawful demands for property or valuables also constitutes cruelty.
The court observed:
“Body shaming and questioning the professional credentials of the complainant are wilful acts that cause significant injury to mental health and thus fall squarely within the definition of cruelty under Explanation (a) of Section 498A IPC.”
The judge emphasized that mental harassment undermines a woman’s dignity and creates an environment of psychological abuse, which is actionable under the law.
Decision
The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the allegations against the petitioner, if proven, constitute prima facie cruelty under Section 498A IPC. The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that her relationship through marriage excluded her from the definition of “relative” and clarified that non-physical acts of harassment, such as body shaming, fall within the scope of cruelty under the provision.
