498A IPC| Mere Monetary Demands to Clear Debts Do Not Amount to Cruelty: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently observed that demands by a husband for financial help to clear debts cannot, by themselves, constitute “cruelty” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, while upholding the acquittal of a Guntur man accused of harassing his wife.

The bench of Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao on September 19 dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by Kattabathuni Seethamahalakshmi, who challenged her husband’s acquittal in a 498A IPC case.

Seethamahalakshmi had married Nandam Venkata Malleshwara Rao in 1990, and the couple had two sons. Trouble began when, according to her, Rao became addicted to alcohol and gambling, took her salary, and misused her savings. She alleged that he forced her to sign blank cheques at knifepoint, demanded Rs. 25 lakh to settle debts, assaulted her, and even kidnapped their children after a quarrel in 2008. A case under Section 498A was registered, and he was arrested that year.

At trial, five prosecution witnesses were examined. Seethamahalakshmi’s mother testified that her daughter had purchased properties from her earnings, and other witnesses claimed to have seen Rao in drunken states, demanding money. Despite this, the trial court in Tenali acquitted him in 2010, finding no specific or reliable evidence of cruelty.

Challenging that decision, Seethamahalakshmi argued before the High Court that the trial court ignored corroborated testimony and the weight of the evidence. She maintained that consistent witness statements and her own account proved harassment beyond doubt.

The High Court, however, noted that while financial disputes between spouses may strain a marriage, they do not automatically amount to cruelty under criminal law.

“A mere demand by the husband to provide funds for repayment of debts, in itself, does not amount to harassment under the law,” the court observed.

Court emphasised that cruelty under Section 498A requires specific acts backed by credible proof. In this case, crucial details such as the dates, amounts, or nature of payments allegedly made to Rao were missing. The claim that blank cheques were extorted was also unsupported by banking records. Even the complainant’s mother did not corroborate the allegations of physical or mental harassment.

Court said the prosecution’s case was built on “omnibus and generalized allegations” unsupported by either documents or independent testimony. “Mere assertions cannot substitute the foundational legal requirement of admissible evidence, particularly in a criminal trial, where the standard of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” court remarked. 

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Ganesha v. Sharanappa (2014) and Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (2002), the High Court reiterated that interference in an acquittal is warranted only in cases of glaring illegality or miscarriage of justice.

In this case, it found the trial court’s reasoning sound and its conclusions not perverse. "After a careful and conjoint reading of the entire material on record, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 498A of the IPC against the accused," court held.

Therefore, the revision petition was dismissed. 

Case Title: Kattabathuni Seethamahalakshmi Vs. The State of AP and Another

Order Date: September 19, 2025

Bench: Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao