The Supreme Court held that financial control by a husband is a social reality and does not amount to criminal cruelty without proven mental or physical harm. Quashing a Section 498A case, the Court said criminal law cannot be used to settle personal vendettas.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court determined that a husband’s financial and monetary control over his wife does not constitute cruelty unless there is clear evidence of mental or physical harm.
A bench led by Justices BV Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, stated,
“The said situation is a mirror reflection of the Indian society where men of the households often try to dominate and take charge of the finances of the women but criminal litigation cannot become a gateway or a tool to settle scores and pursue personal vendettas,”
Additionally, the Court addressed allegations made by the wife regarding a lack of care from the husband during her pregnancy and postpartum period, as well as continuous remarks about her post-birth weight.
The Court indicated that these grievances reflect poorly on the husband’s character but do not rise to the level of cruelty that justifies litigation against him.
Consequently, the bench quashed the FIR filed against the husband, noting that,
“A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the complainant-respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that the husband and his family along with the accused-appellant herein mentally harassed her with a demand of dowry, the complainant-respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment.”
Although the complainant claimed that a total of Rupees One Crore was demanded by the accused and his family, she failed to provide any evidence or supporting material to substantiate her claims. The Court further remarked on the absence of any indication that the alleged harassment resulted in any injury, either mental or physical.
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a Telangana High Court order that refused to quash criminal proceedings against the husband under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
There was no act or omission linked to the accused-appellant that implicated him in the alleged offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
The Court elaborated that merely stating that the husband has mentally harassed the wife regarding dowry demands does not satisfy the criteria under Section 498A of the IPC, especially given the lack of persuasive material or evidence.
The Court stated,
“The term ‘cruelty’ cannot be established without specific instances. The tendency of invoking these sections, without mentioning any specific details, weakens the case of prosecution and casts serious aspersions on the viability of the version of the complainant.”
Thus, the Court concluded that the absence of specifics in an FIR, which serves as the basis for invoking state criminal proceedings, cannot be overlooked.
In cases involving allegations of cruelty and harassment, it is normally required for the complainant to articulate a series of specific offensive acts against those accused.
The case arose from an FIR lodged by the wife against her husband and his family members alleging mental harassment, financial control, lack of care during pregnancy, and dowry demands.
While the Telangana High Court had earlier quashed proceedings against the husband’s parents and siblings, it refused similar relief to the husband, forcing him to face trial.
In 2022, the wife filed a case at the Saroornagar Women Police Station in District Rachakonda under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
She alleged that her husband harassed her whenever she requested money for household expenses, insisting on detailed accounts while he was able to send large sums to his parents in India.
After the Telangana High Court refused to quash the proceedings against the husband, he sought relief from the Supreme Court. He argued that the accusations made by his wife reflected typical marital issues rather than cruelty.
The husband pointed out that all other family members named in the FIR had already been exonerated by the Telangana High Court. The Supreme Court reiterated that courts must exercise caution when handling such complaints, taking pragmatic realities into account to avoid miscarriages of justice and misuse of legal processes.
Also Read: Dowry Death? Dying Declaration Sends Mother-In-Law To Jail For Life: District Court
The allegations presented by the complainant were viewed by the Court as indicative of the regular challenges within a marriage and, therefore, did not amount to cruelty.
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman and covers wilful conduct that causes serious mental or physical harm or harassment linked to unlawful dowry demands, while Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act punish the giving, taking, or demanding of dowry, making it clear that criminal liability arises only when there is a specific, unlawful demand for property or valuable security connected with marriage.
Case Title: Belide Swagath Kumar v State of Telangana & Another
Read Attachment
Click Here to Read More Reports On Dowry
Click Here to Read More Reports On 498A