Every Insensitive Or Objectionable Act In Matrimonial Home Not Cruelty: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that every insensitive or objectionable act occurring within a matrimonial household does not, by itself, constitute cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by a woman challenging a revisional court order discharging her in-laws from the offences under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of IPC, while retaining the charge of cruelty against her husband.

The Court observed that where several relatives of the husband are sought to be prosecuted, the complaint must be examined to determine whether it discloses their respective participation in the alleged acts.

“The caution expressed in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar does not permit the Court to disbelieve a matrimonial complaint merely because several members of the family have been named. It does, however, require the Court to distinguish a role-specific allegation from a collective attribution made indiscriminately against the entire family,” the Court observed.

It emphasised that the material on record must disclose conduct attributable to the concerned accused persons that bears the character required under the provision.

The trial court had discharged the woman's father-in-law, mother-in-law and two sisters-in-law. She alleged that her matrimonial family harassed her over dowry demands, including Rs. 5 lakh and a Maruti Esteem car and subjected her to physical and verbal abuse.

She also alleged that her husband compelled her to withdraw money from her bank account and hand over her earnings to him.

The complaint further alleged that the woman was administered medicines during her pregnancy and that there was denial of adequate medical assistance, following which she suffered a miscarriage.

The Court noted that the allegations against the husband included specific instances of physical assault, withdrawal and receipt of money, and refusal of medical assistance. However, it also noted that the allegations against the other relatives were, in material part, collective in nature and did not sufficiently identify their individual acts.

The Court also observed that the allegation against the mother-in-law concerning the performance of household work despite the woman's physical condition was not linked to a dowry demand on that occasion.

With regard to the sisters-in-law, the Court noted that the allegations of taunts concerning the woman's appearance and dowry were largely part of a collective narrative against the family.

“Therefore, the conclusion directing discharge of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 under Section 498-A IPC cannot be termed perverse or patently illegal so as to justify supervisory interference. The proceedings against respondent No. 3 have already abated on account of his death and no further determination is required in relation to him,” the Court said.

Regarding Section 406 of IPC, the Court said that the complaint did not state which accused responded to the demand or how any of them dishonestly converted, used, disposed of or retained the article alleged to be in his or her possession.

It added that continued presence of property in a shared matrimonial home, without material disclosing the individual entrustment and subsequent dishonest dealing, does not automatically constitute criminal breach of trust against every member of that household.

“The discharge of the accused under Section 406 IPC, therefore, does not disclose the degree of patent illegality or perversity necessary for the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. The challenge to that part of the impugned order must also consequently, fail,” the Court said.

It dismissed the plea, holding that the revisional court's decision to distinguish the allegations against the husband from those against his relatives was a view reasonably open on the record.