'Criminal Law Can't Invoked Against Every Relative Of Husband Due To Matrimonial Discord': Madras HC Quashes S.498A IPC Case Against In-Laws

Justice Victoria Gowri underlined that criminal prosecution cannot be launched against a husband's relative merely because there is matrimonial discord among the couple.

“Criminal law cannot be set in motion against every relative of the husband merely because matrimonial discord exists between the spouses,” court said.

The court highlighted that criminal process was a shield for the aggrieved and not a sword for vengeance. It added that while courts should always ensure that the wife's voice must not be silenced, it should also ensure that the relatives of the husband are not subjected to a long criminal trial merely because of their relationship with the husband, without materials.

“The criminal process must remain a shield for the genuinely aggrieved and not become a sword for collateral vengeance. Matrimonial discord, when translated into criminal prosecution, must be examined with judicial sensitivity. The Court must ensure that the grievance of the wife is not silenced at the threshold when it discloses a triable case. At the same time, the Court must also ensure that relatives, whose alleged role is only described in sweeping and ornamental language, are not condemned to the long corridor of criminal trial merely because of their relationship with the husband,” the court said.

The court was hearing the quash petition filed by the husband and his relatives to quash the case pending against them before the Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakkanur.

The marriage between the husband and wife was solemnised on June 29, 2015 and a male child was born to them on July 30, 2016. As per the prosecution, the husband had ill-treated the wife, developed intimacy with another woman, assaulted the wife, seized the wife's phone and assaulted her demanding the password. The husband's relatives supported him in this conduct.

Seeking to quash the plea, the petitioners argued that the prosecution was an abuse of process and ordinary wear and tear of marriage was given a criminal colour. He argued that three days after marriage, the husband and wife started living separately and the wife used to interfere with the husband's official duties and suspect him whenever he spoke to his colleagues or parties in connection with work.

With respect to the husband's relatives, it was argued that they had been roped in only because they were his relatives and there was no specific overt act, no date-wise allegations, no particulars of cruelty and no material to show their participation in any alleged offence.

The State, on the other hand, argued that the final report had been filed and the truthfulness of the allegations could not be gone into in a petition for quash. The state argued that the allegations against the husband were specific and the matter should go for trial.

The court noted that the allegations against the husband were of matrimonial cruelty, assault, abuse, and conduct within the matrimonial relationship and it was a matter to be proved at the time of trial.

However, with respect to the husband's relatives, the court noted that the final report did not disclose any clear, individual over act against them. The court noted that there was no specific allegation of unlawful demand and no specific allegation that any of them committed any wilful act satisfying the statutory meaning of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC. The court added that the prosecution cannot continue merely because it was argued that the in-laws caused mental cruelty.

“The mere use of expressions such as “supported him” or “in-laws caused mental cruelty” cannot by itself constitute an offence under Section 498-A IPC. Criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to proceed on the basis of relationship alone. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 498-A IPC deserve to be quashed insofar as petitioners 2 to 7 and 10 are concerned,” the court said.

The court thus opined that the prosecution against the relatives could be quashed and thus partly allowed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.K.Gurunathan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl. side), Mr.S.Sundarapandian

Case Title: S Sathish Kumar and Others v State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 253

Case No: Crl OP(MD).No.2451 of 2024