“Ordinary Wear and Tear of Marriage Is Not Cruelty”: Karnataka HC on 498A IPC Misuse

Observing that “the law does not punishes imperfect marriages,” the Karnataka High Court has held that Section 498A IPC is meant to address grave cruelty and not the ordinary wear and tear of married life, while quashing criminal proceedings against a husband and his family.

The bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna made the observation while quashing the FIR registered against a Bengaluru-based man and his parents in a dowry harassment case, describing the proceedings as a clear abuse of the criminal process arising out of marital discord.

A complaint was filed in 2024 by the wife against her husband, Abuzar Ahmed, and his family members, alleging offences under Sections 498A and 504 IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The FIR was registered by the Basavangudi Women Police Station, nearly seven years after the marriage and more than a year after the complainant returned to India from the United States.

The parties were married on August 25, 2017, after which they relocated to the US, where the husband was employed. They lived together abroad for nearly six years and had two children during the marriage. The wife returned to India in January 2023 with the children, and the criminal complaint was lodged the following year.

In her complaint, the wife alleged that her in-laws demanded about 900 grams of gold at the time of marriage, that she was subjected to mental and physical harassment, and that she was treated like a domestic servant. The allegations included restrictions on speaking to her parents, criticism over cooking and household work, denial of basic needs, verbal abuse, and pressure during pregnancy. Most of the incidents described were stated to have occurred while the couple was living in the US.

Following the registration of the FIR, a Look Out Circular was issued against the husband, restricting his international travel, prompting the accused to approach the high court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the proceedings.

After examining the complaint in detail, Justice Nagaprasanna held that even if the allegations were accepted at face value, they did not meet the legal threshold required to constitute “cruelty” under Section 498A.

Court observed that the complaint largely reflected domestic disagreements, unmet expectations, and strained marital relations rather than conduct so grave as to endanger life, limb, or mental health, or harassment linked to unlawful dowry demands.

“The law does not criminalize incompatibility, nor does it punish imperfect marriages. Section 498A of the IPC is not a panacea for all matrimonial ills," said the court.

It emphasised that minor disagreements, personality clashes, or dissatisfaction within a marriage, cannot be elevated to criminal offences.

Court also expressed concern over the mechanical registration of the FIR without a preliminary enquiry, despite clear directions of the Supreme Court. It termed the issuance of a Look Out Circular on the basis of such allegations as particularly troubling, observing that it had serious civil consequences for the accused.

Justice Nagaprasanna relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments cautioning against the misuse of Section 498A and the tendency to rope in all members of the husband’s family through vague and omnibus allegations. Court reiterated that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue where the complaint does not disclose specific acts amounting to cruelty or dowry demand.

While clarifying that genuine cases of cruelty must be dealt with firmly, court warned that allowing prosecutions based on everyday marital friction would not only misuse criminal law but also place unnecessary strain on the justice system.

Concluding that the complaint failed to disclose the commission of any cognisable offence, the high court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings pending before the trial court.

Case Title: Auzar Ahmed and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

Order Date: January 8, 2026

Bench: Justice M Nagaprasanna