Remarks on Wife’s Clothes or Cooking Don’t Amount to ‘Grave Cruelty’ Under 498-A IPC: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench on August 8, 2025, quashed criminal proceedings against a Pune-based man, his parents, and two sisters in a matrimonial dispute, observing that the allegations of cruelty and harassment under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code were largely “omnibus” in nature and lacked sufficient evidence.
A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh allowed a plea filed by Tushar Sampat Mane, his father Sampat Dadu Mane, mother Surekha Sampat Mane, and sisters Nutan Metkari and Tanuja Shinde. An FIR was lodged by Tushar’s wife, Bhagyashree, on 12 August 2023 at Pundlik Nagar Police Station in Aurangabad under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The couple married on 24 March 2022 in what was the wife’s second marriage. In her complaint, she accused the family of hiding the husband’s mental illness before marriage, subjecting her to verbal abuse, restricting her interactions, accusing her of infidelity, and later demanding Rs. 15 lakh for purchasing a flat. She alleged that her husband used to check her WhatsApp, Telegram, call history, E-bill, etc. She claimed she was eventually driven out of the matrimonial home on 11 June 2023.
However, court noted that the charge sheet itself contained pre-marriage chats in which Tushar disclosed he was undergoing treatment, contradicting the claim of suppression. “In spite of the said chats, when the marriage was performed, now it cannot be said that the informant had no knowledge about the illness prior to the marriage,” the bench observed.
The judges also highlighted inconsistencies in the wife’s statements. She admitted that she was treated well for the first month and a half and did not claim absence of sexual relations during that period, despite later attempting to project the husband as incapable.
Allegations of harassment, such as not bringing a gift for her mother-in-law’s birthday, being criticised for cooking or clothing, and quarrels during festivals, were found to be minor domestic issues rather than “grave cruelty” as defined under Section 498-A IPC.
"Making annoying statements that informant was not wearing proper clothes, was not able to cook food properly, cannot be said to be acts of grave cruelty or harassment," court said.
The bench further observed that the police had not corroborated the claims by examining neighbours or independent witnesses. Most statements came from the complainant’s relatives and were based on what she had told them. Even the alleged demand for Rs. 15 lakh appeared inconsistent, as the family was already living in a flat at the time of marriage.
“When the relationship gets strained, it appears that exaggerations are made,” the court remarked, adding that forcing the applicants to face trial in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
"When everything was disclosed prior to the marriage and allegations are omnibus or of not so grave for befitting in the concept of cruelty contemplated under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, it would be an abuse of process of law if the applicants are asked to face the trial," court said.
Consequently, court quashed the criminal case pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, against all five accused.
Case Title: Tushar Sampat Mane and others vs State of Maharashtra and another
Order Date: August 8, 2025
Bench: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh