The Bombay High Court, sitting at its Aurangabad bench, has quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against a husband and his family, observing that allegations of cruelty were omnibus and exaggerated. The Court noted that annoying statements about a wife’s cooking or attire do not constitute cruelty of a “grave nature” as contemplated by the law, and that continuing with the trial would be an “abuse of process of law” since the wife was aware of the husband’s medical condition before the marriage.
The division bench of Justice Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh delivered the judgment, allowing an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash an FIR and the subsequent criminal case pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad.
Background of the Case
The applicants in the case were the husband, his parents, and his two married sisters. They sought the quashing of a criminal case that arose from an FIR lodged by the husband’s wife (Respondent No. 2).
The marriage between the husband and wife took place on March 24, 2022. It was the second marriage for the wife. According to the FIR, she was treated well for about one to one-and-a-half months, after which disputes began. She alleged that she discovered her husband had a pre-existing ailment, which was suppressed by him and his family. She further accused her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of harassment over gifts and made allegations of mental and physical cruelty, including a demand for Rs. 15,00,000 for the purchase of a flat. She stated she was driven out of her matrimonial home on June 11, 2023.
Arguments of the Parties
The advocate for the applicants argued that the wife was fully aware of the husband’s medical condition before the marriage, as evidenced by pre-nuptial chats that were part of the police charge sheet. It was submitted that the allegations against the family members were omnibus and that the sisters-in-law lived separately and did not interfere in the couple’s life. The demand for money was contested as illogical, given the family already owned a flat.
Conversely, the advocate for the wife and the Additional Public Prosecutor argued that there was a deliberate suppression of the husband’s illness. They contended that the wife was subjected to mental and physical harassment over trivial matters, her character was questioned, and there was a specific demand for Rs. 15,00,000. It was submitted that these acts constituted cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC, warranting a trial.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court meticulously examined the charge sheet, particularly the pre-marriage chats between the husband and wife. The Court observed that the husband had specifically mentioned the tablets he was taking, which should have alerted the wife to his health status. The bench noted, “in spite of the said chats when the marriage was performed, now it cannot be said that the informant had no knowledge about the illness prior to the marriage.”
Addressing the allegations of cruelty, the Court referred to the definition under Section 498-A IPC, which requires the conduct to be of a nature “likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.” The Court found that the allegations did not meet this high threshold.
In a key observation, the Court stated, “Making annoying statements that informant was not wearing proper clothes, was not able to cook food properly, cannot be said to be acts of grave cruelty or harassment.”
The Court also questioned the credibility of the alleged demand for Rs. 15,00,000, stating, “When already the applicants are residing in a flat and this fact was considered by informant at the time of marriage that there is a house to the husband, then why there would be a demand of Rs.15,00,000/-.”
The judgment criticized the police investigation for failing to “make inquiry with the neighbours of applicants regarding the treatment given by applicants to informant.”
Concluding its analysis, the Court held that the wife’s allegations appeared to be an exaggeration made after the marital relationship had soured. The bench stated, “When the relationship gets strained, it appears that exaggerations are made. When everything was disclosed prior to the marriage and allegations are omnibus or of not so grave for befitting in the concept of cruelty contemplated under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, it would be an abuse of process of law if the applicants are asked to face the trial.”
Decision
Based on its findings, the High Court allowed the criminal application. The proceedings in the pending criminal case, arising out of the FIR registered for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, were quashed and set aside against the husband and his family members.
