In a significant interpretation of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that a woman being asked by her in-laws to divorce her husband so he can marry a girl from a higher caste does not, by itself, constitute cruelty under the provision, LiveLaw reported.
The division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh passed the judgment on April 4, while hearing a petition filed by a 21-year-old woman seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against her. The petitioner, the sister-in-law of the complainant, was accused of pressuring her brother라이브 바카라 wife to end the marriage due to caste differences.
The court noted that while the in-laws’ disapproval of the marriage based on caste was evident, the specific allegation against the applicant was limited to her asking the woman to divorce her husband to facilitate his remarriage to a higher-caste woman, LiveLaw reported.
"She had not abused the informant on her caste... She insisted on a divorce, which certainly is not cruelty as contemplated by Section 498-A of the IPC," the bench observed. It added that there was no evidence of dowry demands, sustained abuse, or provocation that could lead to suicidal tendencies — criteria required to establish cruelty under the section.
The FIR, filed on April 28, 2023, at the Kranti Chowk Police Station in Aurangabad, named the husband, his sister (the applicant), and their parents. Charges included sections 498-A, 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC, along with relevant sections of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
According to the complainant, she married the accused라이브 바카라 brother in May 2021, but his family never accepted her due to her caste. She alleged repeated mental and physical harassment, including caste-based abuse.
While the court declined to quash the FIR against the husband and his parents — citing prima facie evidence of abuse — it found insufficient grounds to proceed against the sister-in-law. The bench concluded that her role did not warrant trial under the charges framed.
The ruling narrows the interpretation of cruelty under Section 498-A and emphasizes the necessity of concrete allegations such as sustained abuse or dowry harassment to proceed with prosecution.
