In a notable decision, the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, quashed an FIR against a husband and his relatives in a dowry harassment case, observing that merely telling a wife she cannot cohabit with her husband unless she brings money from her parental home, without additional coercive actions, does not amount to mental or physical harassment under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The ruling, delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Rohit W. Joshi, highlights the importance of evidence-backed allegations in matrimonial disputes.
Case Background
The case originated from an FIR lodged by a woman against her husband and his family members, alleging harassment over demands for ₹5,00,000 as dowry to secure her husband’s permanent employment. The accused were charged under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 323 (causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC.
The complainant claimed that the harassment began three months after her marriage in June 2022, when her husband and in-laws began taunting her for her inability to meet their dowry demands. She alleged they prohibited her from cohabiting with her husband until the money was brought, adding that threats were issued to prevent her return.
Legal Issues Addressed
1. Threshold for Cruelty Under Section 498-A IPC
The court examined whether the allegations amounted to mental or physical cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC. It emphasized that vague and non-specific claims, without clear evidence of coercive behavior, do not constitute cruelty.
2. Demand for Dowry and Prohibition of Cohabitation
The bench analyzed whether prohibiting a wife from cohabiting with her husband due to unfulfilled dowry demands constitutes harassment. It observed that such behavior, unaccompanied by physical or sustained mental cruelty, falls short of the legal threshold for harassment.
3. Role of Investigating Authorities
The judgment addressed procedural lapses, criticizing the police for their insensitive and non-specific investigation. The bench stressed that investigations must be evidence-driven and avoid implicating individuals unnecessarily.
Court’s Observations
The court highlighted the vagueness of the FIR and the absence of substantial details. It stated:
“Merely stating that a woman was told she cannot cohabit with her husband unless she brings money from her parents, without concrete details or further coercive action, does not meet the threshold for mental or physical harassment.”
It further observed that the statements of witnesses were repetitive and lacked originality, undermining the credibility of the evidence. “Copy-paste statements by witnesses reflect a lack of application of mind and insensitivity on the part of the investigating officers,” the bench remarked.
The court also underscored the need for investigators to differentiate between allegations involving immediate family members and those against distant relatives, emphasizing that unnecessary harassment and false implications must be avoided.
Decision
The bench quashed the FIR and the related proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sillod.
“This is a fit case for exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to avoid unjust trial against the applicants,” the court concluded.
The applicants were represented by Advocate Ms. Pooja S. Ingle on behalf of Mr. S.J. Salunke. Advocate Mr. N.R. Dayama appeared for the State of Maharashtra, while Advocate Mr. A.L. Kanade represented the complainant.
