Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench.
Bombay High Court Rules: Remarks on Cooking, Clothing Not “Cruelty” Under IPC Section 498A: MUMBAI — The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench has made a significant observation regarding the interpretation of “cruelty” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), ruling that minor domestic annoyances, such as a husband’s remarks on his wife’s cooking or choice of clothing, do not constitute grounds for a criminal case. The court, in a judgment that quashed a criminal complaint, emphasized that such allegations are often “exaggerations” made when a marital relationship is under strain.
The ruling came in the case of Tushar Sampat Mane and Ors v. State of Maharashtra, where a woman had filed a case against her husband, his parents, and two sisters. The complaint included claims of mental and physical harassment, concealment of the husband’s mental health condition, and demands for ₹15 lakh to purchase a flat. The woman alleged that after an initial period of harmony, she was subjected to cruel treatment and was eventually driven out of her matrimonial home.
READ: Supreme Court Upholds Judicial Inquiry, Dismisses Justice Yashwant Varma’s Challenge
However, the Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh systematically dismantled the allegations. The court held that the claims were “omnibus” in nature and lacked specific, corroborative evidence. While the woman’s counsel argued that the acts constituted a pattern of cruelty, the court disagreed, stating that “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.”
A key point of contention was the allegation that the husband’s psychological condition was concealed. The court, after reviewing chat records, noted that the wife was, in fact, aware of his health issues before the marriage. This directly contradicted a central tenet of her complaint.
READ: Supreme Court Strips Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Prashant Kumar of Criminal Roster
The judgment reflects a growing concern among courts regarding the misuse of Section 498A, a law originally enacted in 1983 to protect married women from dowry-related harassment and domestic violence. The provision, which makes cruelty a cognizable and non-bailable offense, has been criticized in some circles for being weaponized in matrimonial disputes. The Bombay High Court’s ruling reinforces the judiciary’s stance that the law should not be used to settle domestic quarrels or personal scores.
The court ultimately concluded that forcing the husband and his family to face trial based on these “exaggerated” and unsubstantiated allegations would be an “abuse of the process of law.” As a result, the case against all four family members was quashed, underscoring the need for concrete evidence and a higher threshold for what constitutes criminal cruelty in marital disputes.
READ: Bombay High Court Establishes Circuit Bench in Kolhapur, to Begin Operations August 18
Advocates Anshuman Deshmukh and BS Deshmukh represented the husband and his family, while Additional Public Prosecutor R P Gour appeared for the State. The wife was represented by advocates Raviraj Wakale and Rahul Joshi.
READ ORDER: Tushar Sampat Mane Vs State of Maharashtra
