Karnataka High Court Questions Wife's 498A FIR Over Allegation She Was Denied Nutritious Food, Suffered Hair Loss

Observing that not every family grievance can be elevated to the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday [July 27] questioned whether allegations against husband and in-laws to the effect that they deprived the complainant-wife of nutritious food causing her hair fall, would constitute cruelty under Section 498 A IPC.

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna made the observations while hearing a petition filed by four family members, including the husband's mother, father, brother, and uncle, seeking quashing of an FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 352 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Questioning whether the allegations disclosed the ingredients of cruelty under Section 498A IPC, the Court orally remarked,

“…Hair loss, that's 498A?... Isn't that skirmishes that happen in a family?... all viscosities in a family cannot become matters of 498A.. Cruelty in view of the complaint is not cruelty. Cruelty in the eyes of the law is cruelty. You can't bring in any grievance and elevate it to the offence of cruelty.”

The case arose from a complaint filed by the wife, who appeared as party-in-person. She alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by her husband and his family. Among other allegations, she claimed that she was denied nutritious food, was made to eat only simple meals, suffered hair loss because of it, and was prevented by her mother-in-law from entering the kitchen. She further alleged that her mother-in-law mocked her hair loss and suggested that she might be suffering from an illness.

At the outset, the Court sought to understand the allegations, asking, "Toxic mother-in-law?"

Reading from the complaint, Justice Nagaprasanna observed, “…He [Husband] prefers hot dosa. He will finish breakfast by 10 AM. Then I was supposed to eat… What is this…mother-in-law asking you to make raggi balls to the husband?”

Clarifying her grievance, the complainant submitted, “...The allegation is not that I was asked to make…I was not given rich and nutritious food…Just dosa, rice and dal everyday…I had hair loss milord.”

The complainant further alleged that her salary was handed over to her husband at the insistence of her mother-in-law, leaving no money in her own account. She also claimed that she was confined to her room and was not permitted to enter the kitchen.

The Court repeatedly questioned whether such allegations, even if accepted, would amount to cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

Referring to another allegation in the complaint, the Court remarked,

“He[husband] forced me to change my shampoo from Meera to Dove[reads from the complaint] ...can this be...? Will that amount to harassment on demand of dowry or cruelty under 498A? All that is in the divorce proceedings, you can”

The complainant, however, maintained that she had also been defamed by her in-laws, who allegedly portrayed her as having deserted the matrimonial home and being of unsound mind. She further submitted that the petitioners had misled the Court and that she possessed audio and video recordings, some of which had already been produced by the husband in the family court proceedings.

Noting that the investigation was still at the FIR stage and that no chargesheet had yet been filed, the Court reserved orders on the quashing petition. It also directed that the interim protection granted to the petitioners would continue until the next date of hearing.

The petitioners were represented by Advocate Ankith S. Reddy, while the complainant appeared in person. The State was represented by the Special Public Prosecutor.

Case Title: Esther Vedamani & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. 

Case No: Crl.P. No. 8190/2025