.webp)
The Delhi High Court has held that every insensitive or objectionable act within a matrimonial household does not, by itself, amount to “cruelty” under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Women, who had challenged the discharge of her in-laws from the proceedings.
Background
The dispute arose from a matrimonial relationship solemnised in February 2003. The petitioner alleged that her husband and his relatives subjected her to harassment over dowry demands, including ₹5 lakh and a Maruti Esteem car. She also alleged physical and verbal abuse, retention of her belongings and difficulties in obtaining medical assistance during pregnancy.
An FIR was subsequently registered under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. In 2010, the trial court directed framing of charges against the husband and his relatives. However, the Sessions Court later discharged the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law under both provisions, while retaining the Section 498-A proceedings against the husband.
Justice Madhu Jain noted that allegations against the husband included specific instances of physical assault, withdrawal and receipt of money and refusal of medical assistance. In contrast, the allegations against the other relatives were largely collective and did not sufficiently identify their individual acts.
The Court observed:
“Even if taken at its face value, it does not, without further material, disclose wilful conduct of the nature and degree contemplated by clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 498-A IPC. Every insensitive or objectionable act occurring within a matrimonial household does not, by itself, assume the character of statutory cruelty.”
The Court also considered the allegation concerning medicines administered during pregnancy, noting that the medical material described the miscarriage as “spontaneous” and did not contain a contemporaneous history of forcible administration of medicines.
On the Section 406 IPC allegations concerning istridhan, the Court held that merely stating that property remained with members of the matrimonial family was insufficient without material showing individual entrustment and subsequent dishonest dealing.
The High Court found no patent illegality, perversity, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Sessions Court’s order. It held that the distinction drawn between the husband and his relatives was reasonably supported by the record.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, and the pending application was also disposed of.
