Husband Chatting With Sister-In-Law, Engraving Her Son's Name On His Hand Is Not 'Cruelty' Without Requisite Intent: Bombay High Court
The act of a husband chatting or speaking to his sister-in-law (bhabhi) and engraving her son's name on his own hand cannot be brought under the ambit of section 498A IPC which penalises cruelty towards a spouse, held the Bombay High Court.It quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a man's sister-in-law, with whom, his wife alleged he had an 'extra-marital'...
The act of a husband chatting or speaking to his sister-in-law (bhabhi) and engraving her son's name on his own hand cannot be brought under the ambit of section 498A IPC which penalises cruelty towards a spouse, held the Bombay High Court.
It quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a man's sister-in-law, with whom, his wife alleged he had an 'extra-marital' affair.
Single-judge Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale in an order pronounced on June 10 noted that the complainant 'suspected' that her husband was involved with the petitioner, who was the wife of his cousin.
The allegations mentioned in the FIR stated that the husband would often speak or chat with the petitioner, he had engraved her son's name on his hand and had even been uploading her photos on Facebook.
"There is no basic material on which the suspicion can be based. The dispute fundamentally appears to be a matrimonial dispute. The issues are that between a husband and wife. The suspicion, it seems is based on the alleged fact that the husband was speaking/chatting with his sister-in-law (petitioner), and that her son's name was engraved by him on his hand. If the petitioner is considered a relative being the wife of the cousin brother, then in that event her son would be the husband's nephew. The act of talking or chatting with the petitioner or the husband engraving her son's name, cannot in my opinion, be considered as an act to come within the meaning of the terms 'cruelty' as is defined by the the explanations to section 498A of the Indian Penal Code," Justice Bhonsale held.
To term the same, as an act of cruelty, the FIR should prima facie show the intention and intensity of the acts and the “cruelty” inflicted should be such that it drives the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself or lead to such a conduct that causes grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, the judge said.
"In the present case, there is no allegation against the petitioner in respect of any dowry demand etc. If all the allegations in the FIR are considered together and collectively, in my opinion no case is made out against her under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. When the allegations in the FIR are considered, it prima facie appears that the main brunt of the allegations is against the husband and his conduct. The allegations against him are of assault, abuse, demand of dowry, harassment for non-fulfilment of demands of dowry. The chargesheet would indicate that there are CDR between him and the petitioner, without any transcripts. There is no other cogent material or evidence to base the said suspicion. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, and material on record, in my opinion the allegations based on mere suspicion and other similar allegations cannot be termed as cruelty within the meaning of section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code," the judge said.
The judge opined that suspicion should be based on reliable material so as to form basis of cogent and legal evidence at the trial. The material should be such that, it can be translated into legal evidence at the trial.
"In the present case, the record and allegations in the FIR would indicate that the suspicion is based on the moral notions of the complainant wife. It appears that, the suspicion is the subjective analysis of the husband's conduct and the subjective satisfaction based on her moral notions. In my opinion, the suspicion should apart from being based on cogent material be such that makes the court sit back and think at the very first instance. The suspicion should be based and premised on material which prima facie indicates that, it is sufficient to prima facie conclude that a offence is made out and to warrant a trial. One must at all times remember that mere unfounded suspicion cannot substitute legal or cogent evidence," the judge opined.
With these observations, the bench quashed the FIR lodged against the petitioner..
Appearance:
Advocates Prashant Maggu and Sujender Yadav appeared for Petitioner.
Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Palkar represented the State.
Advocate Pranali Kakade represented Complainant.
Case Title: ANG vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 1158 of 2021)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 301