The Karnataka High Court has set aside a criminal case registered against a woman’s mother-in-law and three distant relatives, ruling that the cruelty allegations leveled against them were vague and lacked substance.
Justice M Nagaprasanna delivered the order on August 5, observing that while the complainant raised several grievances regarding her marriage, the primary allegations were directed at her husband rather than his extended family. The court noted that because the husband had not petitioned the court and remains under active investigation, he must independently address the claims against him.
Court Findings and Timeline
The criminal proceedings originated from a First Information Report filed by the wife on April 5, 2025. According to court records, the couple was married on May 13, 2024, but their relationship broke down in less than a year.
In its assessment, the high court stated that the relationship between the spouses and the husband’s family deteriorated rapidly. However, after reviewing the complaint, Justice Nagaprasanna determined that the charges of cruelty under criminal law were not established against the mother-in-law, brothers-in-law, and extended relatives, describing the accusations against them as bald and unsubstantiated.
Specific Allegations Raised
The complainant had alleged a pattern of physical and mental harassment by her husband, along with mistreatment by her mother-in-law. Among her claims, she stated that her husband frequently argued over her weekly visits to her parents’ home, while her mother-in-law escalated these disagreements into larger disputes.
She further claimed that her mother-in-law subjected her to body shaming, forced her to wait until her husband finished eating before mealtime, and denied her nutritious food, specifically preparing dishes like ragi balls only for her son. Additional claims in the complaint stated that her husband forced her to use a specific shampoo that caused hair loss, demanded she straighten her hair, and that her husband and uncle defamed her on a family chat group by making false statements about her mental health.
Legal Arguments Presented
Representing the mother-in-law and relatives, Advocate Ankith S Reddy argued that his clients had no involvement in the personal marital dispute between the couple. He highlighted that the husband was absent from the court proceedings as he was facing ongoing police investigation.
State Counsel Deepthi Alva opposed the petition to quash the FIR, arguing that the complaint contained sufficient elements of cruelty to warrant a complete police investigation. The complainant also appeared in person before the bench, presenting documents to support her claims of torture and requesting that the charges against her in-laws remain intact.
The court ultimately concluded that the lacking specificity in the charges against the extended family members justified quashing the FIR in respect to the mother-in-law and the three relatives.
