New Delhi—The Supreme Court has quashed a cruelty and dowry harassment case filed by a wife against her husband, ruling that sending money to parents or asking a spouse to maintain household expense records does not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
A Bench comprising Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan held that criminal law cannot be misused to settle personal disputes and that everyday marital disagreements cannot be stretched to invoke serious penal provisions. The court observed that allegations of financial dominance, in the absence of tangible mental or physical harm, do not meet the legal threshold of cruelty.
Allowing the husband’s appeal in a judgment delivered on December 19, the Bench noted that the act of financially supporting parents or seeking accountability for household expenses cannot, by itself, form the basis of criminal prosecution. Even if the wife’s claims were taken at face value, the court said they reflected ordinary wear and tear of marital life rather than cruelty envisaged under law.
The case stemmed from an FIR lodged by the wife under Section 498A of the IPC and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband and his family members. The couple, both software engineers, were married in December 2016 and lived in the United States, where they had a son in 2019. Following marital discord, the wife returned to India with the child in August 2019. In January 2022, after the husband issued a legal notice seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the wife filed the criminal complaint.
The Telangana High Court had earlier declined to quash the FIR. However, the Supreme Court found the allegations to be vague and omnibus, lacking specific instances or evidence to establish cruelty or dowry demand. Complaints relating to money transfers to family members, lack of emotional support, or comments on post-pregnancy weight were held insufficient to invoke Section 498A.
Emphasising that the criminal justice system should not be weaponised for personal vendettas, the Bench said invoking penal provisions without clear particulars weakens prosecution cases and undermines the seriousness of genuine complaints. On these grounds, the court set aside the proceedings against the husband.
