Pressuring Spouse To Sign Divorce & Child Custody Papers Doesn't Constitute 'Cruelty': Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has held that merely pressuring a spouse to sign divorce and child custody papers during matrimonial negotiations does not constitute the offence of cruelty under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court observed that such conduct neither amounts to harassment for an unlawful demand of property nor to wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury, as contemplated under Section 86 of the BNS.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Praveen Kumar quashed an FIR registered against a husband under various provisions of the BNS, holding that even if the allegations in the FIR were accepted at face value, the case fell within the categories warranting quashing laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

The FIR was lodged by the petitioner's wife, alleging that she had been subjected to physical and mental harassment since the marriage in 2010. She also referred to earlier complaints lodged in Delhi, proceedings pending between the parties, allegations of assault on her parents, inappropriate conduct by her brothers-in-law in 2019, and CCTV footage said to support her allegations.

Insofar as the present occurrence was concerned, the informant alleged that the petitioner persuaded her to come to Hotel Maurya in Patna on the pretext of a settlement, where he repeatedly pressured her to sign papers relating to divorce and custody of their two daughters. Upon her refusal, he allegedly assaulted her, while also threatening her family through his brother. She stated that she locked herself inside her hotel room out of fear and left the hotel the following day with her father and the police.

The petitioner argued that the FIR was retaliatory in nature, pointing out that the parties had earlier entered into a mediated settlement before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre in September 2025, pursuant to which pending cases between them had been withdrawn.

The High Court noted that the disputes predating the settlement had already been resolved and that the FIR substantially related to a single episode at Hotel Maurya on 7 January 2026. Examining the allegation that the petitioner compelled the informant to sign divorce and custody papers, the Court held:

“What is alleged, therefore, is pressure to accept the terms of separation. That is a matrimonial negotiation, and an acrimonious one.”

The Bench held that such allegations did not satisfy either limb of Section 86 of the BNS defining cruelty. It observed:

“A demand that she sign a divorce petition and a custody arrangement answers neither clause. It is not a demand for property. It is not a demand for valuable security. A solitary episode of the kind alleged does not answer clause (a) either.”

The Court also found that the allegation of wrongful confinement under Section 126(2) BNS was contradicted by the informant's own earliest version. While the FIR stated that she locked herself inside the hotel room out of fear until her father arrived with the police the next day, her subsequent counter affidavit alleged that she had been held captive and escaped.

Holding that these two versions could not be reconciled, the Court observed that the earliest narration itself negatived the ingredient of confinement. The Court further noted that the parties had settled their earlier disputes in September 2025, withdrew the cases filed against each other, and subsequently fell out again over the terms of separation and custody of their daughters. It also noted that the wife herself later instituted matrimonial proceedings seeking dissolution of marriage.

Holding that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, did not disclose the offences alleged, the Court concluded that the case fell within the first, third and fourth categories of Bhajan Lal and quashed the FIR against the petitioner.

Case Title: Raghvendra Kishore Singh @ Raghvendra Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr.

Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 20228 of 2026

Appearance: Mrs. Archana Sinha, Senior Advocate and Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey for the Petitioner. Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad for the State. Mr. Amit Srivastava, Senior Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sanju, Mr. Girish Pandey, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. Bhaskar Sandilya and Mr. Ravi Kumar for Opposite Party No. 2.

Click Here To Read/Download Order