Delhi High Court: Asking Wife to Care for Family Member Not ‘Cruelty’ Under Section 498A IPC

The Delhi High Court has held that merely asking a wife to assist in caring for a family member does not amount to “cruelty” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding to Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), reaffirming that criminal law cannot be invoked for routine domestic expectations or ordinary marital disagreements.

A bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered the ruling while allowing petitions seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC [corresponding to Sections 85, 316 (2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), along with proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

“It is so simple to make such allegations against the family members; there is no explanation about any specific incident to explain her absolutely vague allegations. Moreover, is so oppressive and cruel was the behaviour, there was no Complaint made by the Complainant to any authority……..Merely asking the Complainant to assist in caring for a family member cannot, by itself, constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC”, court observed.

The case arose from a marriage solemnised in January 2005. According to the petitioners, the complainant faced difficulties adjusting to her matrimonial home in Ranikhet and soon began residing primarily with her parents in Delhi. The husband later obtained an ex parte divorce decree in September 2012 from a court in Almora.

Subsequently, in 2013, the complainant initiated criminal proceedings, alleging cruelty, harassment, and misappropriation of her stridhan. The accused approached the high court seeking quashing of the FIR, arguing that the allegations were vague, malicious, and did not disclose any cognisable offence.

Examining the scope of Section 498A IPC, court reiterated that not all forms of marital discord or unpleasant conduct qualify as “cruelty” under the provision. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the bench emphasised that criminal proceedings can be quashed where allegations fail to disclose essential ingredients of an offence.

Court further relied on the recent precedent in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat to underline that cruelty under Section 498A must involve either intent to cause grave injury, drive a woman to suicide, or coerce her or her family into meeting unlawful demands.

On facts, court found that the complaint contained only general and sweeping allegations such as being “harassed,” “humiliated,” or “taunted,” without specifying dates, incidents, or the role of individual accused persons. It noted that such omnibus allegations lacked the necessary legal threshold to sustain criminal prosecution.

“She, as per own submissions, remained in the matrimonial home for a few days and most of the time, was in her paternal home, in Delhi. It is the husband/Petitioner No.1 who used to invariably visit her in Delhi, clearly reflecting the adjustment issues. From these allegations against the Husband, father-in-law and the brother-in-law, it is evident that aside from omnibus allegations that she was tortured, humiliated, taunted, and abused, there is no specific incident narrated to explain the nature of alleged torture”, court observed.

Importantly, court observed that even if the allegations were taken at face value, they primarily reflected incompatibility and lack of adjustment between the spouses rather than conduct amounting to criminal cruelty. It specifically held that expecting a spouse to contribute to family responsibilities, such as caring for a relative, cannot by itself constitute cruelty.

The bench also examined the allegation under Section 406 IPC relating to criminal breach of trust. It found that the complaint did not provide any details regarding entrustment of jewellery or other property, nor did it specify when or how such items were allegedly misappropriated. In the absence of foundational facts, court held that no offence under Section 406 IPC was made out.

With regard to the domestic violence complaint, court noted that it was based on the same set of vague allegations and was filed after the marriage had already been dissolved by a decree of divorce. Referring to its earlier ruling in Kuldeep Kaur v. Swaran Kaur, court observed that once a domestic relationship ceases to exist, the basis for invoking protections under the Domestic Violence Act becomes significantly weakened.

“……..Admittedly, the marriage between Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent stands dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 05.09.2012, which has attained finality. Moreover, the couple resided together only for a brief period of time. Once the domestic relationship between the parties ceased to exist, the foundational requirement for invoking the provisions of the DV Act does not exist”, court observed.

Court also took note of the timing of the proceedings, observing that both the FIR and the domestic violence complaint were initiated after the complainant became aware of the ex parte divorce decree. This, it held, indicated an attempt to revive matrimonial disputes through criminal litigation.

Concluding that the allegations did not satisfy the statutory requirements of cruelty or criminal breach of trust, court held that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the legal process.

“In view of the above discussion, the Complaint under the DV Act is based on the same vague and omnibus allegations which have already been examined in the context of the FIR. Further, the Complaint has been instituted after the decree of divorce dated 05.09.2012, which has attained finality, thereby bringing the domestic relationship between the parties to an end. In the absence of any specific allegations of domestic violence and a subsisting domestic relationship, continuation of the present proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law”, court ruled.

Accordingly, the high court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, reiterating that criminal law must not be used as a tool to settle personal scores in matrimonial disputes.

Case Title: Sandeep Pathak and others v. Lalita Tiwari

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Date of Judgment: 10.03.2026