The Bombay High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a woman’s in-laws, holding that merely remaining silent, refusing to take sides, or acting as passive observers in marital disputes cannot attract liability under Section 498A of the IPC.
Bombay High Court has set aside a criminal case and all proceedings against the in-laws of a woman, holding that mere silence such as not taking sides with a daughter-in-law, refusing to actively support her, or simply acting as a passive observer cannot be the basis to invoke the offence of cruelty to wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
In a May 8 ruling, Justice R. R. Bhonsale observed that,
“A parent or relative, caught between the crossfire of allegations by and between two adults in a relationship of marriage, and who chooses to remain quiet, cannot be roped in an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),’’.
The court noted that the offence of cruelty to a wife under Section 498A can attract up to three years’ imprisonment, and that the alleged cruelty must be a wilful act intended to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury to her life, limb, or health strictly as contemplated under Section 498A, and not otherwise.
ALSO READ: Protection for Women or Misused Legal Weapon?: Section 498A IPC Explained
The High Court further said that, as emphasised by the Supreme Court, pragmatic realities must be considered in matrimonial disputes.
The background was that a 26-year-old woman, in July 2022 within six months of her marriage lodged an IPC Section 498A FIR at Kamothe Police Station in Navi Mumbai. The accused listed were her husband (31), her parents-in-law, and also her brother-in-law and sister-in-law. The couple later went into marital discord and, in March 2025, the High Court referred the matter for mediation, but the mediation attempt failed.
In her FIR, the woman alleged ill-treatment, abuse and assault by her husband and in-laws. She also alleged that she was not allowed access to her phone due to doubts raised by her husband, and that she was prevented from visiting her parents. She further alleged she was forced to perform domestic chores, made to watch adult content with the involvement of her husband and in-laws, and that her in-laws retained all her gold ornaments when she decided to leave the marital home.
Her husband and in-laws approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. The family’s counsel instructed the lawyer to pursue relief only for the in-laws (not the husband), contending that the allegations against them were vague. The woman’s lawyer responded that the husband had married again and that in 2021 a similar cruelty case filed by the first wife had been withdrawn after a compromise.
After hearing all parties, including counsel for the woman and the State, the High Court held the allegations against the parents-in-law and the brother and sister-in-law were “Bald, sweeping allegations which are unsupported by credible material cannot be the basis to invoke the provisions of Section 498A of the IPC. ’’
With respect to the remaining relatives, the court said that “what is alleged are some disagreements or a difference in a point of view in the normal course of living as a family’.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the FIR against four of the accused as a sheer abuse and misuse of the legal process to rope in the husband’s kin through vague and omnibus allegations.
However, it directed that the criminal case against the husband would continue.
The High Court’s decision cited multiple Supreme Court rulings.
ALSO READ: ‘Ineffective and Misused’: Supreme Court Flags Serious Gaps in India’s Anti-Dowry Laws
One of the Supreme Court observations quoted by the High Court was,
“We have to keep in mind that in the context of matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and as such in the complaints filed alleging harassment or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other members of the family who do not come to the rescue of the complainant or remain mute spectators to any alleged incident of harassment, which in our view cannot by itself constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts attributed to them. Further, when tempers run high and relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily mean that such domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality.’’
The High Court said parties must be extremely cautious, take care, and consider the ground reality that appears prima facie.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s position, it noted that in many cases relatives sometimes even those living in different cities or abroad and meeting the parties only occasionally at functions may be accused based on general, vague and omnibus claims, without concrete details of any specific role in the alleged offence.
It also noted that in some matters, allegations under Section 498A are raised shortly after marriage, and such cases require greater scrutiny and careful handling.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Misuse of Section 498A IPC