The Calcutta High Court has ruled that asking an educated and earning wife to contribute to household expenses or pay EMIs for a joint property does not constitute ‘cruelty’ under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In a significant judgment quashing criminal proceedings against a doctor and his son on September 3, 2025, Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta clarified that routine incidents of domestic life and mutual financial responsibilities cannot be stretched to attract the stringent provisions of the anti-dowry law.
The court was hearing a criminal revisional application filed by Dr. Hiralal Konar and his son seeking the quashing of proceedings initiated by the son’s wife. The case, registered at Patuli Police Station, involved charges under Sections 498A (cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, and Section 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Background of the Case
The petitioner no. 2 (the husband) and the opposite party no. 2 (the wife) had their marriage registered on April 21, 2011, and later solemnized it according to Hindu rites on January 26, 2014. A daughter was born to the couple on December 19, 2019.
On March 15, 2022, the wife lodged a detailed complaint with the Patuli Police Station, alleging physical, mental, and economic abuse by her husband, father-in-law (Dr. Hiralal Konar), and mother-in-law. The complaint detailed a history of alleged cruelty, including criticism of her physical appearance, caste-based slurs, assault, dowry demands, and neglect of her and her child. Following an investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet on May 11, 2022, and the trial court took cognizance of the offenses. The petitioners then moved the High Court to have the proceedings quashed.
Arguments of the Parties
Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, argued that the allegations were “vague and omnibus in nature” and constituted a “concocted story” intended to harass the petitioners. He contended that the investigation was conducted in a “lackadaisical and mechanical manner” and that the essential ingredients for the alleged offenses were not met. Specifically, for the charge under the SC/ST Act, it was argued that the alleged insults did not occur in “public view,” a mandatory requirement under the law.
Conversely, counsel for the wife and the State argued that the complaint clearly disclosed cognizable offenses. They maintained that the materials collected during the investigation, including witness statements, established a prima facie case against the accused, and therefore the proceedings should continue.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, after a thorough perusal of the complaint, case diary, and witness statements, found significant flaws in the prosecution’s case. The Court noted that while the wife made numerous allegations of torture, they were mostly general in nature, lacking specific dates, times, and places.
The judgment pointed out that the two incidents which were dated—an alleged assault on July 14, 2017, and another in November 2020—were not supported by any medical reports or injury documentation. The court also observed “inconsistencies with written complaint” in the statements the wife gave to the police under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC.
Addressing the allegation under the SC/ST Act, the Court observed that the alleged caste-based insult was made “within the precinct of matrimonial house and that would in no way from the public view.” Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, the Court reiterated that for an offence under the Act to be attracted, the insult must occur in public view. As this essential ingredient was missing, the charge could not be sustained.
The Court also questioned the credibility of the cruelty allegations, stating, “Such allegations, when viewed against the backdrop of her conscious decision to marry the petitioner after a prolonged love relationship, cannot easily commend acceptance to a prudent mind.” It noted the significant delay in lodging the complaint, as no report was filed between 2011 and 2022 despite the claim that cruelty began at the inception of the marriage.
Crucially, the Court distinguished between routine marital discord and legally defined “cruelty.” The judgment directly addressed the specific nature of the allegations with the following observation: “The opposite party no. 2 is an educated and earning woman, and the routine expectations of contributing towards household expenses, making online purchases during the Covid-19 lockdown, or being asked to feed the child by the mother-in-law, cannot, by any stretch, constitute ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. Likewise, payment of EMIs for a jointly acquired apartment, or the father taking the child outside, are not unusual incidents of domestic life.”
The Court cited a recent Supreme Court decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Ors. Vs. State of Telangana and Anr., which cautioned against the misuse of Section 498A IPC. The apex court had observed, “there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-A IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife.”
Final Decision
Concluding that the allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected did not disclose the commission of any offense and that the proceeding was “manifestly attended with mala fide,” the Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Justice Gupta ruled, “the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law and for securing justice it would be appropriate to quashed the impugned proceedings.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal revisional application and quashed the entire proceedings in Special Case No. 9/2022 pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Alipore, insofar as they concerned the petitioners.
