Calcutta High Court rules in 498A case that asking an educated, earning wife to contribute to household expenses or pay EMIs for joint property is not cruelty.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Kolkata: 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 amount to “cruelty” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
The ruling came on September 3, 2025, from Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, who quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor and his son, emphasizing that routine domestic expectations and mutual financial responsibilities cannot be stretched to attract stringent provisions of anti-dowry laws.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a criminal revisional application filed by Dr. Hiralal Konar and his son, seeking to quash proceedings initiated by the son’s wife. Their marriage was first registered in April 2011 and later solemnized in January 2014 according to Hindu rites. The couple welcomed a daughter in December 2019.
On March 15, 2022, the wife filed a complaint at Patuli Police Station alleging physical, mental, and economic abuse by her husband and in-laws. The allegations included criticism of her appearance, caste-based slurs, assault, dowry demands, and neglect. Based on this, charges under IPC Sections 498A, 406, 506, the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were invoked.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners:
Senior advocate Sekhar Basu argued that the complaint was vague, omnibus, and concocted to harass the family. He pointed out that the investigation was mechanical and that essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not established. Specifically, under the SC/ST Act, he argued the insult did not occur in “public view,” a mandatory condition.
For the Opposite Party and the State:
Counsel argued that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that witness statements collected during the investigation established a prima facie case.
ALSO READ: 498A (Cruelty Law) Being Misused For Personal Vendetta Against Husband: Supreme Court
Court’s Observations
Justice Gupta scrutinized the complaint, case diary, and witness statements, and found several shortcomings:
- General Allegations: The cruelty charges lacked specific dates, times, or medical evidence.
- SC/ST Act Charges: The alleged caste-based insult occurred within the matrimonial home, not in public view. Referring to Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, the Court held that such allegations could not sustain a charge under the Act.
- Routine Domestic Incidents: The Court noted that routine expectations—such as contributing to household expenses, paying EMIs for joint property, making online purchases during the Covid-19 lockdown, or being asked by a mother-in-law to feed the child—cannot constitute “cruelty” under Section 498A.
- Delay in Complaint: The Court highlighted the long gap between marriage and the first report in 2022, despite allegations of cruelty since inception, casting doubt on the credibility of claims.
The Court also cited the Supreme Court ruling in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, which warned against the misuse of Section 498A IPC to settle personal scores.
Final Judgment
Invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Calcutta High Court quashed the proceedings in Special Case No. 9/2022 pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Alipore. Justice Gupta observed:
“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 quash the impugned proceedings.”
Case Title:
Dr. Hiralal Konar & Anr. Versus The State of West Bengal and Anr.
C.R.R. 2329 of 2022
Read Judgment:
READ MORE REPORTS ON SECTION 498A
