Is husband's domination on wife's finances cruelty? Supreme Court says no, "its a mirror reflection of Indian society"

The Supreme Court has held that monetary and financial dominance of the husband, cannot qualify as an instance of cruelty on the wife, especially in the absence of any tangible mental or physical harm caused.

"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", a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan has held.

Furthermore, on the allegations of the wife such as lack of care on the part of the husband during pregnancy and postpartum and constant taunts about her after birth weight, court has held they at best reflect poorly upon the character of the husband but the same cannot amount to cruelty so as to make him suffer through the process of litigation.

The bench went on to quash the FIR filed against the husband noting that, "A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the complainant-respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that the husband and his family along with the accused-appellant herein mentally harassed her with a demand of dowry, the complainant-respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. Although she has alleged that an amount totalling to Rupees One Crore was demanded by the accused-appellant and his family members, the complainant-respondent No.2 has failed to put forth any evidence or material on record to elaborate or substantiate the same. Furthermore, the complainant-respondent No.2 has failed to impress the court as to how the said alleged harassment has caused her any injury, mental or physical. There has been no remote or proximate act or omission attributed to the accused appellant that implicates him or assigns him any specific role in the said FIR for the offence of 498A of the IPC.",

Court has further said that merely stating that husband has mentally harassed the wife with respect to a demand of dowry does not fulfil the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC especially in the face of absence of any cogent material or evidence on record to substantiate the said allegations.

"The term “cruelty” cannot be established without specific instances. The tendency of invoking these sections, without mentioning any specific details, weakens the case of prosecution and casts serious aspersions on the viability of the version of the complainant. Therefore, this Court cannot ignore the missing specifics in an FIR which is the premise of invoking criminal machinery of the State. In such cases involving allegations of cruelty and harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against perpetrators in specific terms to involve such perpetrators into the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them and therefore mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such persons would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings", the bench added.

In 2022 the wife had registered a case with Saroornagar Women Police Station, District Rachakonda under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

It was the wife's case that her husband used to harass her whenever she used to ask him for money for the household purposes and used to ask for penny-wise accounts whereas he used to send lakhs of rupees to his parents in India.

As the Telangana High Court had refused to quash the proceedings against the husband, he approached the Supreme Court for relief. The top court was told that the allegations made by the wife refer to general wear and tear of the marriage which are part and parcel of a matrimonial life. The husband further argued that all the other family members of his who were arraigned as accused in the said FIR as well as the Complaint Case have been exonerated by the High Court for the State of Telangana.

"Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases where the allegations have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law. The allegations put forth by the complainant respondent No.2 have been considered by us. In our view, they reflect the daily wear and tear of marriage and can, in no way, be categorised as cruelty", the top court held.

Case Title: BELIDE SWAGATH KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF TELANGANA & ANOTHER

Bench: Justices Nagarathna and Mahadevan

Judgment Date: December 19, 2025