Supreme Court: Vague and omnibus allegations in a Section 498A FIR fail to constitute cruelty without specific instances or evidence

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 Indian Penal Code 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. {Para 24}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No.... of 2025 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.... of 2025 (Arising Out of Diary No. 47072 of 2023))

Decided On: 19.12.2025

Belide Swagath Kumar Vs. State of Telangana and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Author: B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1722/2025,2025 INSC 1471.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such persons would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC.

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. {Para 24}

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. of 2025

arising out of Diary No.47072 of 2023)

BELIDE SWAGATH KUMAR Vs  STATE OF TELANGANA & ANOTHER 

Author: NAGARATHNA, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1471.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Section 377 IPC and Marital Disputes: Distinguishing Grounds for Divorce from Criminal Offence

Heard submissions and pursued the FIR and other documents. The complainant has grievance against her husband, who is a gay and kept sexual relations with male friends i.e., the petitioner. The Supreme court in the case of Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. vs. Union of India1 has held section 377 of the Indian Penal Code insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between the adult of same sex, as unconstitutional. In the present case, both were having an extra marital consensual sexual relationship. Though it may be a ground for divorce on the ground of cruelty to the complainant, it does not constitute offence under section 377 because both are adults and had sexual relationship by consent. In this case, there is no victim. The complainant wife is an aggrieved person but she cannot be called as a victim under section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. There are allegations against the husband having unnatural sexual intercourse with her. {Para3}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Writ Petition No. 4470 of 2012

Decided On: 30.01.2019

Daniel Crasto Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Mridula Bhatkar, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/0239/2019,AIRONLINE 2019 BOM 195.

Print Page

Can a Wife Prosecute Her Husband’s Male Partner for Unnatural Offence under Section 377 IPC?

Bombay High Court Discharges Accused from Section 377 IPC After Navtej Singh Johar Judgment: A Landmark Application of LGBTQ Rights

Article:

The Bombay High Court, in the case of Daniel Crasto vs The State of Maharashtra (judgment dated 30 January 2019),citations: AIRONLINE 2019 BOM 195 delivered a significant ruling that directly applied the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. vs. Union of India to ongoing criminal proceedings under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Print Page

Supreme Court Acquits Husband in Dowry Death Case: Holds Prosecution Failed to Prove Cruelty or Harassment “Soon Before Death,” Presumption Under Section 113-B Evidence Act Not Applicable Due to Contradictory Testimonies

In the cross-examination, PW-7 stated that police had recorded his statements on 3rd April 1998 and 7th April 1998, which were marked as exhibits DG and DH, respectively. He accepted that the allegation that the Accused used to maltreat his sister on account of insufficient dowry given in the marriage and having brought broken furniture is not found in both the police statements. He also stated that the demand for a refrigerator, a motorcycle, and a mixi does not find place in both statements. Therefore, the version of PW-7 in his examination-in-chief about the demands of dowry is a significant and relevant omission. Hence, this amounts to a contradiction. The public prosecutor claimed that the demand for a refrigerator, a motorcycle, and a mixi was mentioned in his third statement, which was recorded on 23rd June 1998. The third statement, recorded belatedly, obviously appears to be an afterthought. As regards his statement that the Accused used to give a beating to his sister, it seems that he got this information when he visited the matrimonial home of his sister three months after the marriage. It is a very vague allegation. Moreover, the witness has not stated that this was disclosed to him by his deceased sister. Assuming that what he has said is correct, this incident of beating must have taken place between 25th June 1996 till end of September 1996. Therefore, this incident did not happen soon before the death. It is not his case that when the deceased allegedly visited his house nine to ten days before the incident, she complained about any cruelty or any harassment. Thus, none of the three statements of the witnesses contain any specific instances of cruelty or harassment.

{Para 16}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1076 of 2014

Decided On: 31.01.2025

Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka,  and Ujjal Bhuyan, , JJ.

Author:Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

 Citation: 2025 INSC 133,MANU/SC/0132/2025.

Print Page

What is distinction between concept of cruelty U/S 498A of IPC and Under Civil law or Matrimonial law?

 C. Veerudu Vs. State Of A.P.(1989) CR. L.J. NOC 52(A.P.)

• S. 498 A The sole constituent of offence u/s 498 A is cruelty which means 'wilful conduct'. The Word wilful contemplates obstinate and deliberate brhaviour on part of offender for it to amount to cruelty. Thus 'Mensrea' is an esssential ingredient of the offence.
• The principles are that the standard of proof of cruelty are higher in degree in criminal law than in civil law under the matrimonial causes.
• The intention or mensrea on the part of one spouse to injure the other is not a necessary element of cruelty in civil law for martimonial causes while it is an essential element in criminal law.
• It is enough if crulety is proved by preponderance of probabilities in civil law while in criminal trials the coduct of cruelty has to be proved beyond all resonable doubt.
• It is immaterial in civil law whether respondent's conduct was aimed at the other spouse or is due to unwarranted indifference attributable perhaps to selfishness or laziness while it is very much material in criminal proceeding and for relief of matrimonial causes in civil law the conduct of spouse need not necessarily result in danger to life, limb or health but a reasonable apprehension of such danger is enough, whereas section 498 A contemplates such a conduct besides being wilful to result in the likelihood of driving the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.

[ In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 756 of 1987. ] 1

VEERULU V/S STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, decided on Friday, June 10, 1988.  Judge(s) : BHASKARA RAO. Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Laws Intended To Protect Women From Cruelty & Dowry Harassment Shouldn't Be Misused To Settle Personal Scores

 Criminal law should not be used as a tool for

harassment or vendetta. The allegations in a criminal

complaint must be scrutinized with care to ensure

that they disclose a prima facie case before subjecting

individuals to the rigors of a criminal trial. The cases

involving allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC

and the DP Act often require a careful and cautious

approach to prevent misuse of the law. While the

provisions are intended to protect women from

cruelty and dowry harassment, they should not be

used to settle personal scores or pursue ulterior

motives. {Para 16}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

(ARISING FROM SLP (CRL.) NO.1754/2024)

P.V. KRISHNABHAT & ANR Vs  THE STATE OF

KARNATAKA & ORS.

Dated: JANUARY 15, 2025.

Print Page

Delhi HC: The court must adopt gender neutral approach/Men facing cruelty in marriage is also entitled to same legal safeguards as women

 

In this Court‟s opinion, the hallmark of fair and just justice delivery system is to remain gender-neutral while adjudicating cases of such nature as the present one. In case a woman causes such injuries, a special class cannot be created for her. Crimes involving the infliction of life-threatening bodily injuries must be dealt with firmly, irrespective of whether the perpetrator is a man or a woman since the life and dignity of every individual, regardless of gender, are equally precious.

{Para 22}

23. Moreover, the notion that in marital relationships, only women suffer physical or mental cruelty without exception, may be contrary to the hard realities of life in many cases. Courts cannot adjudicate the cases before them, on the basis of stereotypes.

 24. The empowerment of one gender and protection to it can not come at the cost of fairness towards another. Just as women deserve protection from cruelty and violence, men too are entitled to the same safeguards under the law. To suggest otherwise would violate the very basic principles of equality and human dignity, and this Court cannot differentiate between genders when it comes to acts of physical violence or causing injuries. Creating a special class of leniency for one gender would erode the foundational principles of justice in cases of life threatening bodily injuries.

25. This case also highlights a broader societal challenge. Men who are victims of violence at the hands of their wives often face unique difficulties, including societal disbelief and the stigma associated with being perceived as a victim. Such stereotypes perpetuate the erroneous belief that men cannot suffer violence in domestic relationships. Thus, the Courts must recognize the need for a gender-neutral approach to such cases, by ensuring that men and women are treated alike.

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

  BAIL APPLN. 262/2025

JYOTI ALIAS KITTU Vs  THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

Date of Decision: 22.01.2025.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Delhi HC: Under which circumstances wife is not entitled to anticipatory bail for causing injury to husband?

The other argument that the accused be granted bail since she has a three month old child to take care of, is also found unmerited in this case, since it is apparent from the record, from the complaint andthe statement of the witnesses recorded so far, prima facie, that accused herein had left her three months old daughter crying besides a badly burnt husband and had locked both of them in the room before fleeing from the spot with his phone. The daughter is being taken care of by the victim/husband and his family. {Para 28}

29. The argument regarding there being no motive and false implication of the accused, to entitle her to anticipatory bail, is also unmerited, since the record reveals that four days prior to the incident in question, i.e. on 27.12.2024, the victim husband had lodged a detailed complaint with the police (running into eight pages) against her wife for cheating, extortion and forced marriage. Pertinently, in the said complaint, the victim had mentioned in detail about the conduct of the accused, including her previous relationships with several men, a child born out of a previous marriage which she had not disclosed to the victim herein, the fact that she had filed several cases under Section 376 of IPC against different persons, etc., which were not in his knowledge. He had also mentioned his apprehension that his wife may kill him with the help of her mother and other family members and he had therefore sought protection from the police.

30. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that the applicant herein has failed to join investigation, the recovery of the phone of the victim is to be effected alongwith the need to confront her with the documents mentioned in the complaint, considering also the nature of injuries and the manner in which the injuries were caused, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

  BAIL APPLN. 262/2025

JYOTI ALIAS KITTU Vs  THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

Date of Decision: 22.01.2025.

Print Page

Bombay HC: In-Laws Keeping Young Child Away From Mother In Defiance Of Court Order Is Cruelty U/S 498A IPC

 As mentioned above, the daughter of respondent No. 2, who is now only around four years old is kept away from her. A judicial order passed by the Competent Court of law is also not being obeyed. Although, the daughter is with husband, we have already recorded above that the applicants herein are assisting his husband in the sense that his whereabouts are not being disclosed. Keeping a young child of four years old away from her mother in defiance of Court order also amounts to mental harassment amounting to cruelty in as much as it would certainly cause grave injury to mental health of respondent No. 2, mother of the child. Such act of the in-laws amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Explanation (a) to Section 498-A of IPC. We further record that the said mental harassment is continuing from day to day till date. It is a continuing wrong. {Para 13}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Application No. 2376 of 2023

Decided On: 11.12.2024

Rekha and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi and R.W. Joshi, JJ.

Author: R.W. Joshi, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/7440/2024.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Husband's Girlfriend Is Not His Relative, Cannot Be Booked For Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC

Non-applicant No.2 Bharti, has lodged the complaint against her husband Nitesh stating that because of the affair of her husband with the applicant he tortured her.  Initially, the First Information Report is registered against the husband. During the investigation, the statements are recorded. The cause of harassment by the husband was disclosed about the affair with the applicant and therefore, the name of the applicant is added and the chargesheet is filed against the applicant.

6. As the applicant is not the relative of husband of nonapplicant No.2 498-A of the Indian Penal Code shall not be attracted. As the charge-sheet is filed against this applicant, who is not the relative and only because allegations are made that the husband of the non-applicant No.2 is having extra marital affair with this applicant, the charge-sheet filed against her which is illegal, according to law. Hence, the criminal application is allowed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.622 OF 2020

Vaishali Janbaji Gawande Vs  Bharati Nitesh Raipure, 

CORAM : VIBHA KANKANWADI AND

 MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

 DATE : 11th July, 2024

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Vrushali V.Joshi, J.)

Print Page

Bombay HC: In-Laws Can't Be Booked U/S 498A of IPC Merely On Allegations That They Supported Husband Who Subjected Wife To Cruelty

 In the case of R. P. Kapur V/s. State of Punjab, reported in MANU/SC/0086/1960 : 1960:INSC:61 : AIR 1960 SC 866, the Hon'ble Apex Court had summarized the categories of cases where inherent powers can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. The three categories are reproduced here-in below :

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. {Para 15}

16. In our opinion, the case of the present Applicants would fall under the category (ii) from the above referred three categories, where the allegations in the FIR or the complaint taken to its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. Merely, remarks in the complaint about the supporting the accused No.1 while narrating some of the incidents would not per se amount to committing the offences which they have been alleged of. It would be unfair to continue the prosecution against the present Applicants for the conduct of the accused No.1, in which they have been unfortunately dragged. From the various incidents which have been narrated by the Respondent No.2 as well as the witnesses, who are her near relatives, there does not appear to be complicity of the present Applicants. The continuation of present proceedings against the Applicants would cause injustice and hardship to the Applicants. Even otherwise, the material collected during the investigation does not support the charges levelled against the present Applicants. The malafide proceedings initiated against the present Applicants needs to be curbed at this stage itself, in order to prevent abuse or process of law and miscarriage of justice, since it is obvious that the allegations are not supported by any other cogent material and have been made with a view to wreak vengeance against the present Applicants.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Application (APL) No. 1241 of 2014 and Interim Application No. 779 of 2020

Samad Habib Mithani and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bharati H. Dangre and Manjusha Ajay Deshpande, JJ.

Author: Manjusha Ajay Deshpande, J.

Decided On: 25.07.2024.

Citation:  MANU/MH/4875/2024.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Indian Court Can Entertain Complaint Against Domestic Violence Committed Abroad

It would be necessary at this stage to consider the decision in the case of Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra). It is true that issue involved before the Apex Court was with regard to the jurisdiction of criminal Court to entertain the criminal case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 15 of this decision has considered the close nexus between the cruelty as defined under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the acts of the domestic violence as defined under the D.V. Act. In my view, it would be appropriate to reproduce para No. 15 of this decision. It reads thus:-

"15. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, as the object behind its enactment would indicate, is to provide a civil remedy to victims of domestic violence as against the remedy in criminal law which is what is provided under Section 498-A of the Penal Code. The definition of "domestic violence" in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 contemplates harm or injuries that endanger the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, as well as emotional abuse. The said definition would certainly, for reasons stated above, have a close connection with Explanations (a) & (b) to Section 498-A of the Penal Code which define "cruelty". The provisions contained in Section 498-A of the Penal Code, undoubtedly, encompass both mental as well as the physical well-being of the wife. Even the silence of the wife may have an underlying element of an emotional distress and mental agony. Her sufferings at the parental home though may be directly attributable to commission of acts of cruelty by the husband at the matrimonial home would, undoubtedly, be the consequences of the acts committed at the matrimonial home. Such consequences, by itself, would amount to distinct offences committed at the parental home where she has taken shelter. The adverse effects on the mental health in the parental home though on account of the acts committed in the matrimonial home would, in our considered view, amount to commission of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A at the parental home. The consequences of the cruelty committed at the matrimonial home results in repeated offences being committed at the parental home. This is the kind of offences contemplated under Section 179 CrPC which would squarely be applicable to the present case as an answer to the question raised." {Para 12}

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that sufferings of the wife at parental home though may not be directly attributable to commission of acts of cruelty by the husband at matrimonial home but the same would undoubtedly be the consequences of the acts committed at the matrimonial home. It is observed that such consequences, by itself, would amount to distinct offences committed at parental home where she has taken shelter. It is further observed that adverse effects on the mental health in the parental home though on account of acts committed in the matrimonial home would amount to commission of cruelty.

14. In my view, by drawing the analogy from these observations, it has to be held that apart from the express provisions of Section 27, in my view, the consequence of trauma, suffering and distress carried by the complainant to her parental home would be sufficient to reject the submissions advanced by relying upon Section 1 of the D.V. Act. It is further pertinent to note that the reliance on subsection 2 of Section 27 is totally misplaced inasmuch as the question of execution of order would arise depending upon the nature of the order. Therefore, relying on subsection 2 of Section 27, the issue of jurisdiction cannot be answered in favour of the respondent No. 1.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Application (APL) No. 1576 of 2022

Decided On: 29.03.2023

Sumeet Vs. Himani 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.A. Sanap, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1944/2023.

Print Page

Supreme Court guidelines for ascertaining mental cruelty in matrimonial relations

 No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behavior which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental cruelty'. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.

(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.

(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.

(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.

(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behavior of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.

(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.

(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behavior of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.

(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.

(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.

(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.

(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty. {Para 74}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 151 of 2004

Decided On: 26.03.2007

Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.N. Agrawal, P.P. Naolekar and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.

Author: Dalveer Bhandari, J.

Citation: ( 2007 ) 4 SCC 511, MANU/SC/1386/2007.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Irretrievably Broken Down Marriage Can Be Dissolved On Ground Of 'Cruelty'

When we take into consideration the facts as they exist today, we are convinced that continuation of this marriage would mean continuation of cruelty, which each now inflicts on the other. Irretrievable breakdown of a marriage may not be a ground for dissolution of marriage, under the Hindu Marriage Act, but cruelty is. A marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce, inter alia, on the ground when the other party "has, after the solemnization of the marriage treated the Petitioner with cruelty"1. In our considered opinion, a marital relationship which has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts cruelty on both the sides. To keep the facade of this broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both the parties. A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty. It is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage Under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Act.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2012 of 2013

Decided On: 26.04.2023

Rakesh Raman Vs. Kavita

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sudhanshu Dhulia and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.

Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0456/2023,AIR 2023 SC 2144, 2023/INSC/433

Print Page

Is a government servant entitled to 100% back wages if acquitted for cruelty upon his wife upon compromise?

 

 In the present case, respondent is not acquitted on merits. His

acquittal is attributable to compromise with his wife. Petitioner-State therefore cannot be saddled with the liability to pay salary and allowances during the period when respondent remained under dismissal. He incapacitated himself from performing duties owing to his conviction. It is also pertinent to note that respondent’s conviction was upheld even by the appellate court. This further prolonged the period of his dismissal. in such

circumstances it is highly debatable whether any back wages were payable to Respondent. Nonetheless the State Government decided to pay 50% salary and allowances to him during the intervening period. However, to expect payment of 100% salary and allowances during that period would be highly undesirable. Respondent had involved himself in a criminal case arising out of his private affairs unconnected with performance of his duties.

He kept himself away from his duties on account of his conviction. In such circumstances there is no question of payment of full salary and allowances to the respondent. {Para 16}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 2470 OF 2018

The State of Maharashtra  Vs Shri Surendra G. Ghodake 

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE : 8th MARCH, 2023.

JUDGMENT : (PER - SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

Citation: 2023 Lawweb (Bom HC ) 14.

Print Page

Whether Marrying Another Woman Without Wife's Consent Constitutes Cruelty U/S 498-A IP?

When a husband performs the second marriage while his first marriage is alive, a question arises as to whether such act on the part of husband would amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC. As per explanation to Section 498-A of the IPC, cruelty means; any wilful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (mental or physical) of the woman. It also includes harassment caused with a view to coercing the woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. Here, we are concerned with wilful conduct of such a nature which has caused or which is likely to cause danger to health of non-applicant no. 2. Marrying another woman by the husband during existence of his first marriage is something which is most likely to cause trauma and grave injury to the mental health of the first wife, unless it has been done with the consent of the first wife. If the act of performance of second marriage during subsistence of the first marriage is not interpreted as

amounting to cruelty contemplated under Section 498-A of the IPC, it would frustrate the legislative intent to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relative of her husband and, therefore, that interpretation has to be adopted which sub-serves the object sought to be achieved by the Legislation. Useful reference in this regard may be made to the cases of B.S. Joshi and ors. Vs. State Of Haryana and anr. [2003 Cri L.J. 2028 (SC)] and Reema Aggarwal Vs. Anupam and ors. [(2004) 3 SCC 199]. By these parameters, we find here that the second marriage performed by applicant no. 1 while his first marriage with nonapplicant no. 2 was on, prima facie amounted to cruelty. {Para 5}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1287/2022

 Atul S/o Raju Dongre Vs  SMGate

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND M. W. CHANDWANI, J.J.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

DATED : 30/11/2022

Print Page

Whether Offence under S 498A of IPC committed beyond Indian Territory by Indian Citizens can be tried in India?

The Court also finds that under Section 188 and 189

Cr.P.C. the offences alleged to have been committed beyond the

territory of India by an Indian citizen could be investigated into

and also tried in India.

 ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7081 of

2021

Petitioner :- Shri Abhishek Shukla

Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others

Coram:  Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.

Order Date :- 10.06.2022

Print Page

Whether the court can rely on dying declaration of wife for convicting husband for an offence U/S 498A of IPC?

  A reading of the above pronouncements makes it clear that, in some circumstances, the evidence of a deceased wife with respect to cruelty could be admissible in a trial for a charge under Section 498 A of the IPC under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. There are, however, certain necessary preconditions that must be met before the evidence is admitted. {Para 20}

21. The first condition is that her cause of death must come into question in the matter. This would include, for instance, matters where along with the charge under Section 498A of the IPC, the prosecution has also charged the accused under Sections 302, 306 or 304B of the IPC. It must be noted however that as long as the cause of her death has come into question, whether the charge relating to death is proved or not is immaterial with respect to admissibility.

22. The second condition is that the prosecution will have to show that the evidence that is sought to be admitted with respect to Section 498A of the IPC must also relate to the circumstances of the transaction of the death. How far back the evidence can be, and how connected the evidence is to the cause of death of the deceased would necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. No specific straitjacket formula or rule can be given with respect to this.

23. To the above extent therefore, the judgments of this Court in Gananath Pattnaik (supra), Inderpal (supra), Bhairon Singh (supra) and Kantilal Martaji Pandor (supra), wherein it has been held that the evidence of the deceased cannot be admitted under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act to prove the charge under Section 498 A of the IPC only because the accused stands acquitted of the charge relating to the death of the deceased, may not be correct. These judgments stand overruled to that limited extent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1080 of 2019; 

Dated: MAY 13, 2022 

SURENDRAN Vs STATE OF KERALA

Print Page

Can allegations of demand of dowry and alcohol consumption made by wife amount to ‘cruelty’?

 The allegations made by the respondent wife with regard to the petitioner demanding dowry and indulging in alcohol consumption, in our view, do not tantamount to making serious allegations impinging on the character of the petitioner, to such an extent, that they would be the cause of immense mental agony and cruelty to the petitioner such that it would make it impossible for the petitioner to live with the Respondent wife. Moreover, the past conduct of the Appellant shows that the allegation of the Appellant indulging in drinking of liquor is not false.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh, JJ.)

Harish Kumar  Vs Sarita 

MAT. APP.(F.C) 146/2020 and CM APPL. 30682/2020

Decided on October 6, 2021

Citation: 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4937

Print Page