In-Laws Asking Wife To Divorce Husband So That He Can Marry Girl From Higher Caste Is Not Cruelty: Bombay High Court

In-laws telling a woman to divorce her husband so that he can be married to some other girl of a higher caste is not cruelty under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court held recently. 

A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh noted that the allegation against the applicant, the sister-in-law of the complainant woman, was only that she asked the woman to give divorce to her husband (applicant's brother) so that he could be married to a girl of a higher caste since the complainant was of a lower caste. 

"She (applicant) had not abused the informant on her caste. In the entire report, it is not specifically stated as to when the applicant abused the informant on caste. She insisted her for the divorce, which certainly is not cruelty as contemplated by Section 498-A of the IPC. Saying such words like to take divorce and we will perform marriage with the girl of higher caste, do not establish the cruelty as there is no demand of money, dowry or cruelty driving her to commit suicide as per Section 498-A of the IPC," the bench said in its April 4 judgment. 

The applicant had petitioned the bench along with her brother (husband of the complainant) and her parents seeking to quash the First Information Report (FIR) lodged on April 28, 2023 at the Kranti Chowk Police Station in Aurangabad City under sections 498-A (cruelty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation) read with 34 (common intention) of the IPC along with the relevant provisions of the stringent Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

As per the complaint, the informant woman married the applicant's brother in May 2021 but their marriage was not approved by the husband's family as the informant belonged to the lower caste. In her complaint, the information cited several incidents wherein she was subjected to mental and physical harassment along with casteist abuses and insults. 

Having considered the material on record, the bench expressed its disinclination to quash the FIR lodged against the husband and his parents. However, with regards to the allegations against the applicant i.e the husband's sister, who was only 21 years, the judges noted that material on record was not sufficient to send her to trial. 

"We are of the view that if the applicant is directed to face the trial, it would certainly be an abuse of the process of Court. We are therefore, inclined to allow the application to the extent of applicant by exercising our inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC," the bench said in the order. 

Appearance:

Advocates Nilesh Ghanekar and Nagesh Sonune appeared for the Applicants.

Additional Public Prosecutor PR Bharaswadkar represented the State.

Advocate Joslyn Menezes represented the Complainant. 

Case Title: Ameykumar s/o Nitinchandra Patil vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 2998 of 2023)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 190

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment