Father-In-Law Refusing To Intervene In Husband's Affair, Advising Wife To 'Tolerate' Domestic Violence Not Cruelty U/S 498A IPC: Bombay HC

A woman's father-in-law refusing to listen to her complaint about her husband's 'extra-marital affair' and her brother-in-law (husband's brother) asking her to 'tolerate' her husband's beating would not amount to cruelty under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Bombay High Court held recently.

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Shyam Chandak delivered the ruling while quashing an FIR lodged against a man and his younger son, with the Pune Police, at the behest of his daughter-in-law.

In its December 9, 2025 judgment, the judges noted that the complainant woman in her FIR alleged that her father-in-law and brother-in-law (petitioners) 'polluted' her husband's mind because of which he would often beat her and torture her and when she learnt about her husband's affair and complained about the same to the father-in-law, he allegedly refused to listen to her and responded that 'she must have been harassing the husband' and also expressed displeasure about insufficient dowry.

"As regards the Petitioner–brother-in-law, it is alleged that he taunted her to tolerate her husband's beating. When these allegations are considered apposite Section 498A of the IPC, they do not constitute 'cruelty' as defined in the explanation appended to the provision," the judges held.

The judgment authored by Justice Chandak emphasised on the 'consequences' of such criminal prosecution in matrimonial disputes, wherein the wife often ends up roping in the relatives of the husband and the need of the Courts to protect the 'reputation and character' of the relatives, who are embroiled in such litigation.

"An unfounded criminal charges and long drawn criminal prosecution always have serious consequences. A person implicated in such litigation not only suffers mental trauma and humiliation but also suffers a financial loss. It is common experience that reckless imputations can result in serious repercussion on one's career progression and future pursuits. Additionally, it stigmatizes reputation, bring disrepute and lower the image of a person amongst friends, family and colleagues. As such, in such cases, it is necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 and Article 226 of the Constitution to protect the character and reputation of the relatives who have been unnecessarily implicated in the case of Section 498A IPC," the judgment reads.

Further, the judges opined that the complainant in the present case, lodged the impugned FIR mainly on account of her personal dispute with her husband.

"However, the Petitioners being the relatives of the husband, she implicated them in the FIR with an ulterior motive. Therefore, continuation of the FIR and the consequent charge-sheet against the Petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law," the bench ordered.

With these observations, the judges quashed the FIR.

Appearance:

Advocates Pritish Chatterjee and Nitish Banka appeared for the Petitioners.

Additional Public Prosecutor Supriya Kak represented the State.

Advocate Radhika Mundada represented the Complainant.

Case Title: Amrik Singh Saini vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 4833 of 2024)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment