Husband Sending Money To Parents, Asking Wife To Track Expenses Not 'Cruelty': Supreme Court Quashes 498A Case

The Supreme Court on Friday (December 19) set aside a cruelty and dowry harassment case filed by a wife against her husband, holding that allegations based on his remitting money to his parents and brother and requiring her to maintain Excel sheets of household expenses did not constitute cruelty or dowry demands.

“The act of the accused-appellant of sending money back to his family members cannot be misconstrued in a way that leads to a criminal prosecution. The allegation that the accused-appellant forced the complainant-respondent No.2 to maintain an excel sheet of all the expenses, even if taken on the face value, cannot come under the definition of cruelty. The monetary and financial dominance of the accused-appellant, as alleged by the complainant-respondent No.2, cannot qualify as an instance of cruelty, especially in the absence of any tangible mental or physical harm caused. The said situation is a mirror reflection of the Indian society where men of the households often try to dominate and take charge of the finances of the women but criminal litigation cannot become a gateway or a tool to settle scores and pursue personal vendettas.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, while allowing the husband's appeal.

The case stemmed from an FIR registered by Appellant's wife. She accused her husband and five of his family members of subjecting her to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and of offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act (DP Act).

The couple, both software engineers, married in December 2016 and lived together in Michigan, USA, where their son was born in April 2019. In August 2019, following marital discord, the wife returned to India with the child. The husband sent a legal notice for restitution of conjugal rights in January 2022. Days later, the wife filed the criminal complaint.

Setting aside the Telangana High Court's order that had refused to quash an FIR against him, the judgment authored by Justice Nagarathna held that complaints about the husband sending money to his family, asking for accounts of household expenses, lack of care during pregnancy, or taunts about post-partum weight, even if true, "cannot be categorized as cruelty" under Section 498A IPC. The Court termed these as part of the "general wear and tear of the marriage."

“A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the complainant-respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that the husband and his family along with the accused-appellant herein mentally harassed her with a demand of dowry, the complainant-respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. Although she has alleged that an amount totalling to Rupees One Crore was demanded by the accused-appellant and his family members, the complainant-respondent No.2 has failed to put forth any evidence or material on record to elaborate or substantiate the same. Furthermore, the complainant-respondent No.2 has failed to impress the court as to how the said alleged harassment has caused her any injury, mental or physical. There has been no remote or proximate act or omission attributed to the accused appellant that implicates him or assigns him any specific role in the said FIR for the offence of 498A of the IPC. Merely stating that the accused-appellant has mentally harassed the complainant respondent No.2 with respect to a demand of dowry does not fulfil the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC especially in the face of absence of any cogent material or evidence on record to substantiate the said allegations. The term “cruelty” cannot be established without specific instances. The tendency of invoking these sections, without mentioning any specific details, weakens the case of prosecution and casts serious aspersions on the viability of the version of the complainant. Therefore, this Court cannot ignore the missing specifics in an FIR which is the premise of invoking criminal machinery of the State. In such cases involving allegations of cruelty and harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against perpetrators in specific terms to involve such perpetrators into the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them and therefore mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such persons would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings.", the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: BELIDE SWAGATH KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF TELANGANA & ANOTHER

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1239

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Adv. Ms. Rosemary Raju, Adv. Ms. Anupama Kaul, Adv. Ms. Tulika Bhatnagar, Adv. Ms. Shreya Narayan, Adv. Mr. Sehaj Kataria, Adv. Ms. Chahat Raghav, Adv. Mr. S. S. Jauhar, AOR

For Respondent(s) Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv. Ms. Madhavi Divan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Megha Karnwal, AOR Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Anurag Mishra, Adv.