On Friday, the Supreme Court quashed proceedings initiated against a husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, ruling that asking a spouse to maintain accounts of household expenditure or sending money to one’s parents does not, by itself, amount to cruelty. The Court cautioned against the indiscriminate invocation of penal provisions in matrimonial disputes, observing that criminal law cannot be deployed as an instrument to pursue personal vendettas.
Brief facts:
The case arose from an FIR lodged by the wife against her husband and his family members, alleging cruelty and dowry harassment under Section 498A IPC and Section 3 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The parties, both software engineers, were married in December 2016 and lived together in the United States, where their child was born in April 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 a criminal complaint alleging that he exercised financial dominance, sent money to his parents, required her to maintain an Excel sheet of expenses, failed to care for her during pregnancy, and made remarks about her post-partum weight. The Telangana High Court declined to quash the FIR, prompting the husband to approach the Apex Court.
Contentions of the Parties:
The husband argued that the allegations were vague, omnibus, and reflective of ordinary marital disagreements rather than conduct attracting criminal liability. It was contended that the FIR lacked specific instances or material to establish cruelty or dowry demands, and that the complaint was a retaliatory measure following the notice for restitution of conjugal rights. On the other hand, while opposing the appeal, the wife contended that the husband exercised monetary control, compelled her to account for expenses in detail, sent substantial sums to his family members, and subjected her to mental harassment. She further alleged neglect during pregnancy and persistent taunts after childbirth, asserting that these acts cumulatively constituted cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
Observation of the Court:
The Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that “They reflect the daily wear and tear of marriage and can, in no way, be categorised as cruelty. The act of the accused-appellant of sending money back to his family members cannot be misconstrued in a way that leads to a criminal prosecution.”
The Court held that “The allegation that the accused-appellant forced the complainant-respondent No.2 to maintain an excel sheet of all the expenses, even if taken on the face value, cannot come under the definition of cruelty. The monetary and financial dominance of the accused-appellant, as alleged by the complainant-respondent No.2, cannot qualify as an instance of cruelty, especially in the absence of any tangible mental or physical harm caused.”
The Bench noted that “The monetary and financial dominance of the accused-appellant, as alleged by the complainant-respondent No.2, cannot qualify as an instance of cruelty, especially in the absence of any tangible mental or physical harm caused.”
The Court further remarked that such situations reflect prevailing social realities but cannot justify criminal prosecution, stating that “The said situation is a mirror reflection of the Indian society where men of the households often try to dominate and take charge of the finances of the women but criminal litigation cannot become a gateway or a tool to settle scores and pursue personal vendettas.” The Bench held that “If accepted prima facie, at best reflect poorly upon the character of the accused-appellant but the same cannot amount to cruelty so as to make him suffer through the process of litigation.”
Lastly, the Court concluded that “A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the complainant-respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus.”
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Telangana High Court, and quashed the FIR along with all consequential proceedings. The Bench concluded that permitting the prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law, observing that the allegations, at their highest, reflected the daily wear and tear of marriage and did not disclose the foundational ingredients of offences under Section 498A of the IPC or the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Case Title: Belide Swagath Kumar v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 47072 of 2023
Coram: Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Hon’ble Justice R. Mahadevan
Advocate for the Petitioner: AOR S. S. Jauhar, Advs. Prabhjit Jauhar, Chahat Raghav
Advocate for the Respondent: Sr. Adv. Madhavi Divan, AOR Megha Karnwal, Advs. Surya Prakash, Abhishek Tiwari, Anurag Mishra
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
