The Allahabad High Court has observed that a husband's alleged reference to his wife as a "barren woman" (infertile), in the backdrop of a matrimonial quarrel over childlessness and exchange of abuses between the spouses, did not by itself constitute cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.

A bench of Justice Indrajeet Shukla thus allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC and quashed criminal proceedings against a man who had been summoned for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The bench further remarked that "mere taunts regarding childlessness, refusal to undergo medical examination, or verbal altercations arising from such domestic discord cumulatively without fulling essential of cruelty envisaged under Section 498- A IPC, cannot by themselves constitute the offence of cruelty within the meaning of this penal provision".

Case in brief

The petitioner-Husband (Hirendra Kushwaha) was married to the complainant-wife in December 2015. According to the complaint, no child was born from the marriage even after three years, which led to frequent quarrels between the couple.

The complainant alleged that she was taunted for being unable to conceive and that, during a quarrel on November 23, 2020, she was assaulted and subsequently confined in a room. She further alleged that her father-in-law and brother-in-law raped her.

She approached the police in July 2021, and since no action was taken on her complaint, she moved before the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC.

The Magistrate, however, summoned only the husband under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, while declining to summon the other two accused.

The husband challenged the summoning order before the High Court in the present petition.

High Court's observations

Examining the complaint and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, the Court noted that the quarrel arose from the absence of a child from the wedlock.

The Bench observed:

"These allegations, if taken at their face value, primarily portray a matrimonial discord arising for want of child leading to the exchange of offensive and insulting remarks between the spouses against each other, thus the same not being unilateral affair, rather both appear to be victim and offender for each other".

Justice Shukla specifically observed that the allegation of calling the complainant a “barren woman”, although “undoubtedly insensitive and reprehensible”, did not, in the facts of the case, satisfy the ingredients of Section 504 IPC either, particularly in view of the abuses and counter-abuses between the parties.

The Court further stated that mere exchange of abusive or insulting words is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC.

It reasoned that to constitute an offence under the said provision, it is not sufficient that abusive or insulting words were merely exchanged between the parties.

"The prosecution must prima facie establish that the alleged insult was intentional and of such a nature as to give provocation to the person insulted, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause the person to break the public peace or commit any other offence", the bench clarified.

In the present case, the Court found no material suggesting that the alleged words were uttered with the requisite intention or knowledge. It noted that the statements were made during a domestic altercation "in the spur of movement without any premeditation arising out of matrimonial discord".

"In the present case, the allegations that the complainant was referred to as a "barren woman" and that heated exchanges took place between the spouses over the issue of childlessness, even if accepted at their face value, do not disclose any material to suggest that the alleged words were uttered with the requisite intention or knowledge contemplated under Section 504 IPC", the bench remarked.

The Court also found serious deficiencies in the allegations concerning dowry.

It noted that the original complaint contained no allegation of dowry demand, while a bald allegation appeared subsequently in the complainant's statement under Section 200 CrPC.

The Court observed that the statement under Section 200 CrPC "cannot be allowed to fill the lacunas" consciously omitted from the original complaint. The complainant's mother and brother, who were examined under Section 202 CrPC, also did not make any allegation regarding dowry demand.

The Court consequently held that the allegations under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act lacked the material particulars necessary to constitute those offences.

The Court further examined the overall circumstances and held that the allegations were "predominantly omnibus in nature", with individual roles not properly specified. It observed thus:

“Permitting such prosecution to continue would amount to allowing the criminal process to be used as a weapon in a matrimonial dispute rather than as a means for redressing a genuine criminal wrong.”

The Court also noted that the allegation of assault was general and unsupported by medical material, while the summoning order did not disclose a cogent reason for summoning the husband but not the other two accused who were allegedly involved in the same incident.

Ultimately, the Court held that compelling the petitioner to face a full-fledged criminal trial would serve no meaningful purpose and amount to an abuse of criminal process.

It therefore set aside the summoning order dated January 17, 2023 and quashed the entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 96681 of 2021 pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, insofar as the petitioner was concerned.

Counsel for Applicant(s): Shobhit Singh, Ajai Kumar Singh, Piyush Gupta, Rifat Naaz

Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A., Chandan Srivastava, Pranshu Agrawal

Case title - Hirendra Kushwaha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 577

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 577

Click Here To Read/Download Order