In-laws asking daughter-in-law to do household chores like washing clothes and utensils would not amount to cruelty under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and they cannot be prosecuted on this allegation, held the Bombay High Court while quashing FIR against six members of a family. 

Sitting at the Kolhapur seat, single-judge Justice Abhay Mantri noted the allegation made by the complainant woman that her husband took her to the house of one of his sisters (sister-in-law of complainant) at Kalyan-Badlapur, where she was asked to do household chores. The judge found no basis in the allegations as no specific role was attributed either to the parents-in-law, sisters-in-law or the brother-in-law, who were named in the FIR lodged in 2025.

"Bare perusal of the allegations, it does not appear that any specific role has been attributed to the Petitioners in the FIR as to what they had done; rather, the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. The second allegation, on which the prosecution harps, is that one sister-in-law of the complainant, at whose house her husband took her, had kept her at the said house at Badlapur, Kalyan, where she was asked to do household work such as washing clothes and utensils. However, prima facie, I do not find substance in the said allegation. Apart from that, even assuming that she was asked to wash clothes and utensils, such an act does not constitute the ingredients of Section 498-A of the IPC and cannot be termed as cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC," Justice Mantri held. 

Further, the judge noted that the woman had not mentioned the time, date, place or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. The judge noted that besides these allegations, the woman accused her in-laws of instigating her husband for quarrelling with her on grounds that she could not conceive, she had some health issues and must divorce her husband.

The judge, however, noted that the in-laws, who were named in the FIR, did not live with the complainant at Pune but some lived in Satara, some in Thane district and some in Thane UAE. 

"Thus, the FIR and the entire charge-sheet fail to disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC against the present Petitioners. It is also worth noting that the complainant was residing with her husband at Pune, whereas her in-laws were/are residing at Satara, Abu Dhabi, Ulhasnagar and Ambernath. Sometimes, she used to visit her in-laws' house at Satara, and on one occasion, it is alleged that she resided at the house of sister-in-law at Badlapur. Thus, it seems that she was not living with them. So, the question of causing ill-treatment's at their hands does not arise," the bench said. 

With these observations, the bench quashed the FIR.

Appearance: 

Advocate Ganesh Jadhav appeared for the Petitioners.

Additional Public Prosecutor Priyanka Rane represented the State.

Advocate Kavita Shinde represented Complainant.