In-Laws' Failure To Take Wife's Side In Marital Dispute Doesn't Constitute Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC: Bombay High Court

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court recently held that parents of a husband or his relatives, cannot be booked under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) just because they choose to remain quiet, refrain from taking sides or be a 'passive spectator' in a crossfire of allegations between the husband and the wife.

The High Court, therefore, quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by a woman against her husband's parents and brother and his wife, under section 498A.

Single-judge Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale in a judgment passed on May 8, quashed the FIR lodged in July 2022 against 4 members of the petitioner-husband's family.

The allegations levelled against the parents-in-law and also the husband's brother and his wife, by the complainant woman, were that they did not take any action against her husband despite she complaining to them about his 'conduct' and instead the in-laws, abused her and told her to do as her husband asked her to.

Justice Bhonsale said that the the allegations, even if, are taken at face value and accepted in their entity, the same fail to meet or invoke the required ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC as the same apart from being vague and general in nature, are not person specific.

The judge said that bald, sweeping allegations which are unsupported by credible material cannot be the basis to invoke the provisions of Section 498A of the IPC.

"In my opinion, what is alleged are some disagreements or a difference in a point of view in the normal course of living as a family. By no stretch of imagination can the allegations in the FIR, be termed as acts of cruelty on the part of the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5. To not react, or a refusal to actively take sides of Respondent No. 2 or being a passive spectator, cannot be the basis to invoke the provisions of Section 498A of the IPC. A parents 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 IPC," Justice Bhonsale held. 

According to the complainant woman, her in-laws often taunted her for the gifts she received during the marriage. On the day or reception, when she refused to tell her parents to arrange for a photographer, she was abused and insulted and even her parents were humiliated. She claimed to have been assaulted by her husband and abused by her in-laws on various occasions.

She claimed that her husband was addicted to watching pornographic movies and insisted her to act like the porn stars in the video but she refused to abide and was against assaulted with a 'blade' resulting in bleeding injuries. When she complained about her husband's conduct to her in-laws, they allegedly abused her and asked her to do what her husband tells her to do. 

However, the court found the allegations to be general, vague and without details or supporting.

"In my opinion, it is not a case, where cognisance should be taken by ignoring the general practice in matrimonial matters to involve the entire family members of husband in a matrimonial dispute either to harass the family or seek a convenient settlement. In my view, an attempt is made to rope in the relatives of the husband on the basis of general, vague and omnibus allegations. Permitting the criminal prosecution to continue and allowing the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 to face and undergo a full fledged criminal trial will amount to a sheer abuse of the process of law. I find that no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner Nos 2 to 5. There is no material or prima facie evidence to attract and or substantiate the ingredients of 'cruelty' as required under section 498A of IPC. Even the other offences as alleged are not made out," Justice Bhonsale held. 

With these observations, the judge quashed the FIR against the in-laws but the said case against the husband continues to stand as he did not press for quashing the same qua him. 

Appearance:

Advocate Jitendra Pathade appeared for the Petitioners.

Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Palkar represented the State.

Advocates Poonam Pal and Sachin Hande represented the Wife. 

Case Title: N vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 4349 of 2022)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 271