Mere Taunts, Family Friction In Ordinary Marital Life Not Cruelty: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere taunts, casual references and general family friction occurring in ordinary wear and tear of marital life is not sufficient to constitute the offence of cruelty. Justice Amit Mahajan noted that there is a growing tendency to rope in even distant relatives of husbands, who do not even reside at the matrimonial house, even in the dearth of evidence....
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere taunts, casual references and general family friction occurring in ordinary wear and tear of marital life is not sufficient to constitute the offence of cruelty.
Justice Amit Mahajan noted that there is a growing tendency to rope in even distant relatives of husbands, who do not even reside at the matrimonial house, even in the dearth of evidence.
The Court reasoned that it is done to highlight their active involvement in the alleged acts of cruelty solely for the reason that such relatives may have been privy to the matrimonial acrimony of the parties.
“Such omnibus, sweeping and mechanical implication, however, bereft of concrete evidence, dilutes the very intent and sanctity with which the provision was incorporated,” the judge said.
Justice Mahajan quashed a proceedings in a matrimonial FIR registered against the massi of the husband and her daughter. It was alleged that they demanded dowry from the complainant.
Allowing the plea, the Court said that the petitioners did not reside with the complainant in her matrimonial home and that the allegations, even when taken at the highest, pertain to certain comments made by them or interference in the married life of the complainant.
“However, mere taunts, casual references, vague assertions or general family friction that occur in the ordinary wear and tear of marital life is not sufficient to fall within the definition of “cruelty” as embodied under Section 498A of the IPC,” the Court said.
“The allegations, even when construed liberally and accepted at face value only reveal that the petitioners were privy to the matrimonial life of Respondent No. 3 and also interfered in her married life, the same however, does not constitute cruelty as per Section 498A of the IPC,” it added.
The Court concluded that there was nothing substantial found in the investigation or evidenced in the chargesheet so as to allow the continuance of the proceedings arising out of the FIR against the petitioners.
While quashing consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR in question, the Court said that if the Trial Court finds evidence to proceed against the petitioners, it will be open to take appropriate steps in accordance with CrPC.
Title: SHASHI ARORA & ANR v. STATE THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1433