New Delhi: Asking a wife to account for household expenses does not constitute cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC, the Supreme Court has held.
The Court quashed an FIR registered by a Hyderabad-based woman against her husband, who works in the US as a software engineer.
The couple got married in 2016 and lived together in the US till 2019, when their son was born.
The wife returned to Hyderabad with their child, following marital discord thereafter. In 2022, when the husband sent a legal notice seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the wife filed a complaint at Saroornagar Women’s Police Station against him and his family under domestic violence and dowry harassment laws.
The woman alleged in her complaint that her husband failed to provide financial support for her and their child after she returned to India. She claimed he demanded detailed accounting for every expense while sending lakhs of rupees to his parents in India
The Hyderabad Police issued a lookout notice against her husband based on the complaint. They also filed a chargesheet against him and his family members.
The husband first moved the High Court, but was not granted relief. He then approached the Supreme Court, which not only quashed the FIR but also clarified what constitutes cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC.
The bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan emphasised that cruelty under IPC Section 498A includes only conduct that drives a woman to suicide, causes serious harm to her life or health (physical or mental), or involves harassment for money or property targeting either the woman or her relatives.
Under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, giving or taking dowry is an offence punishable with a minimum of five years imprisonment and a fine of Rs 15,000 or the dowry amount, whichever is higher.
Section 4 prescribes six months to two years imprisonment and up to Rs 10,000 fine for demanding dowry directly or indirectly.
The bench stressed that courts must exercise utmost caution while examining complaints of domestic violence and dowry harassment. In this case, the court found that the wife’s allegations resembled routine marital disputes rather than cruelty.
The judgment stated that a husband sending money to his family members from the US cannot be misinterpreted as an offence, and asking for expense accounts does not fall within the definition of cruelty.
The court also addressed the wife’s allegations that her husband neglected her during pregnancy and harassed her about weight gain after childbirth. Even if these claims were true, the bench observed, they reflect the individual’s character but do not amount to cruelty under the law.
The Supreme Court concluded that the allegations in the FIR were baseless and unsubstantiated.
