Mere Taunts or Family Friction Not Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that mere taunts, casual references, vague allegations, or general family disputes arising out of day-to-day marital life do not amount to “cruelty” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Justice Amit Mahajan, who presided over the matter, observed that the routine wear and tear of married life cannot be stretched to prosecute relatives of the husband unless specific, substantiated acts of cruelty are alleged.

The Court noted a “growing tendency” to indiscriminately name even distant relatives of the husband, uncles, aunts, and extended family members who don’t reside in the matrimonial home, in dowry harassment cases.

Such sweeping and mechanical allegations, without concrete evidence, undermine the very intent of Section 498A, the judge cautioned. The provision, introduced in 1983, was meant to protect married women from dowry-related cruelty, not to be used as a tool to implicate uninvolved relatives.

These remarks came while quashing an FIR registered at Adarsh Nagar Police Station under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC. The complaint was filed by a woman against her husband, his aunt (massi), and the aunt’s daughter, accusing them of harassment and assault over dowry demands.

The couple married on 09 November 2019. The prosecution alleged that the woman was subjected to cruelty by her husband and in-laws, including the petitioners.

The accused aunt and her daughter moved the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, arguing that the allegations were vague, frivolous, and general in nature. They stressed that they neither resided with the complainant nor had any direct involvement in the alleged acts.

Agreeing with the petitioners, the Court noted that they did not live in the matrimonial home. Even if the allegations are accepted at face value, they only suggest that the relatives were aware of the couple’s marital issues and occasionally interfered.

“This does not constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC,” the Court held, reiterating that the legal definition requires wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life.

Finding no grave suspicion to frame charges under Sections 498A, 406 IPC, the High Court quashed the proceedings insofar as they relate to the petitioners.

However, it clarified that if, during trial, evidence surfaces against them, the Trial Court is free to take appropriate action in accordance with the law.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.

Case Title: Shashi Arora & Anr v State through Commissioner of Police & Ors

Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan

Order Date: 3 November 2025