Latest news with #VibhaKankanwadi
News18
12 hours ago
- News18
Complaints About Clothes Or Cooking Don't Amount To ‘Grave Cruelty' Under 498-A, Says Bombay HC
The court also pointed out investigative gaps that police had not questioned neighbours or neutral witnesses, relying solely on statements from the wife's relatives The Bombay High Court has drawn a clear line between marital discord and criminal cruelty, holding that gripes about a wife's attire or cooking skills cannot, by themselves, be treated as 'grave cruelty" under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Delivering the verdict on August 8, the Aurangabad bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A Deshmukh quashed proceedings against a Pune man, his parents, and two sisters, accused of harassing his wife and concealing his mental illness before marriage. The couple's wedding took place in March 2022, the wife's second marriage. Fourteen months later, the relationship collapsed, with the wife alleging verbal abuse, unreasonable demands for gifts, restrictions on her personal communications, and a Rs.15 lakh demand for purchasing a flat. She also claimed she was forced out of the matrimonial home in June 2023. The wife filed the FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. But the court found the wife's version riddled with contradictions. One key piece of evidence turned the case: pre-marriage chats where the husband disclosed he was under treatment, undermining the claim that his health condition had been hidden. 'When the marriage was performed despite this disclosure, it cannot be said she had no knowledge prior to the marriage," the bench noted. On the allegation of cruelty, the judges said making remarks such as the wife not wearing 'proper clothes" or being 'unable to cook food properly" may cause friction but did not rise to the level of serious harassment envisioned by Section 498-A. Such conduct, the court remarked, 'cannot be said to be acts of grave cruelty or harassment". The court also pointed out investigative gaps that police had not questioned neighbours or neutral witnesses, relying solely on statements from the wife's relatives. Allegations, it said, appeared to grow as the relationship deteriorated, making the complaint 'omnibus" and exaggerated. Even the alleged Rs 15 lakh demand seemed questionable. At the time of marriage, the family already owned a flat, a fact known to the wife, raising doubts over whether such a demand was genuinely made. With little independent corroboration and much of the complaint based on subjective grievances, the bench concluded that putting the accused on trial would be 'an abuse of the process of law." It quashed the case in its entirety, ending the criminal proceedings before the Aurangabad Chief Judicial Magistrate. view comments First Published: August 11, 2025, 15:23 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
News18
3 days ago
- News18
Bombay HC Quashes Woman's Complaint Against Husband: 'Comments On Cooking, Attire Not Cruelty'
The woman alleged that about a month after her marriage in March 2022, she was harassed mentally and physically by her husband and her in-laws. The Bombay High Court on Friday quashed a criminal case against a man and his family filed by his estranged wife, observing that remarks on a wife's attire or cooking skills did not constitute grave cruelty or harassment. 'Making annoying statements that the informant was not wearing proper clothes, was not able to cook food properly, cannot be said to be acts of grave cruelty or harassment," said a bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh. The court further said, 'When the relationship gets strained, it appears that exaggerations are made. 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." The woman alleged that about a month after her marriage in March 2022, she was harassed mentally and physically by her husband and her in-laws. She claimed her husband's mental condition was concealed before marriage and he was undergoing psychological treatment. The complainant also accused her in-laws of insulting her for not bringing gifts, demanding Rs 15 lakh during Diwali for a flat and driving her out of the house in June 2023. The husband and his family moved the High Court to quash the case. The woman and her counsel argued that the acts amounted to cruelty under Section 498A, and alleged a pattern of physical and mental harassment, including monitoring her phone and questioning her character. However, the court said that the allegations were 'omnibus" in nature and lacked corroborative evidence, and that the investigating officer had not even questioned the couple's neighbours. It also observed that the wife was aware of the husband's health condition prior to marriage, based on chat records. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) pertains to cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband or his relatives. It is classified as a cognisable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence. This means that police can arrest the accused without a warrant, bail is not granted as a matter of right, and the case cannot be resolved through a private settlement outside the court. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
India Today
3 days ago
- India Today
Remarks on wife's cooking, clothing not cruelty: Court cancels case against man
The Bombay High Court on Friday cancelled a criminal case and related proceedings against a man and his family over a complaint filed by his estranged wife, observing that remarks about a wife's attire or cooking skills do not constitute grave cruelty or harassment."Making annoying statements that the wife was not wearing proper clothes and was not able to cook food properly cannot be said to be acts of grave cruelty or harassment," the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court, constituting Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A Deshmukh said, cancelling the court noted, "When the relationship gets strained, it appears that exaggerations are made. 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 (IPC), it would be an abuse of process of law if the husband and his family are asked to face the trial." Section 498A of the IPC (Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) deals with cruelty against a woman by her husband or his relatives. It is a cognisable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence, meaning the police can arrest the accused without a warrant, bail is not a right, and the case cannot be settled out of case stemmed from a complaint filed by the woman who married the man in March 2022. It was her second marriage, following a mutual consent divorce in 2013. The wife alleged that a month and a half into the marriage, she was no longer treated properly. She also claimed that her husband's family had hidden his mental and physical ailments from the court scrutinised the evidence and found contradictions in the wife's claims. It noted that chats exchanged between the couple before their marriage, which were part of the charge sheet, revealed that the husband had explicitly mentioned the tablets he was taking. The court concluded that the wife had knowledge of his illness and that his medical treatment was disclosed to her before the wife had also alleged a demand for Rs 15 lakh to purchase a flat around Diwali. The court, however, questioned the plausibility of this claim, pointing out that the husband already owned a High Court found the allegations against the family members to be "omnibus" and lacking specific details. It noted that there was no evidence in the charge sheet other than the wife's statement and that the investigating officer had not even questioned the couple's neighbours.- EndsMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Maharashtra
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Remarks on wife's clothing or cooking not cruelty: Bombay high court
MUMBAI: Nearly two weeks after the Bombay high court ruled that taunts over skin colour or cooking skills do not amount to 'cruelty' under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), its Aurangabad bench has made a similar observation—holding that remarks about a wife's clothing or cooking abilities cannot be treated as 'grave cruelty' by husband or relative under section 498-A. The Bombay high court order came in a case involving a woman who had married on March 24, 2022, nearly a decade after divorcing her first husband.(Representational) The order came in a case involving a woman who had married on March 24, 2022, nearly a decade after divorcing her first husband. She alleged that within two months of her second marriage, her husband and in-laws began harassing her—demanding ₹15 lakh to buy a flat, insulting her, and concealing information about her husband's physical and mental health. She claimed she was driven out of the matrimonial home on June 11, 2023. On August 12, 2023, she lodged a complaint at Pundlik Nagar police station, Aurangabad, accusing her husband and in-laws of offences under sections 498-A (cruelty), 323 (causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), read with section 34 (common intention) of the IPC. The case is pending before the chief judicial magistrate. The woman's counsel argued before the high court that the harassment was both physical and mental, citing restrictions on her communication, accusations about her character, and monitoring of her phone and messaging apps. They also claimed her husband had hidden the fact that he could not father a child and suffered from mental illness. However, the division bench of justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh noted that some of the allegations appeared exaggerated and that certain health-related disclosures had been made before the marriage. 'When relationships get strained, exaggerations are made,' the court observed, adding that the claims did not meet the legal threshold for cruelty under Section 498-A. 'Making annoying statements that the informant was not wearing proper clothes or was unable to cook food properly cannot be said to be acts of grave cruelty or harassment,' the bench said, quashing the criminal proceedings against the husband and his family. In a similar ruling late last month, the high court's principal bench in Mumbai had acquitted a man convicted 27 years ago for abetment to suicide, holding that taunting a wife over her complexion or criticising her cooking were domestic quarrels, not criminal cruelty.
The Hindu
26-06-2025
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court quashes dowry harassment case, flags misuse of Section 498-A
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has set aside proceedings against a family of six in a dowry harassment case, terming the charges 'frivolous' and 'motivated'. The Court highlighted contradictions in the complainant's version and flagged serious flaws in the police investigation, asserting that continued prosecution would amount to an abuse of the legal process. The case stemmed from an FIR registered by a woman who alleged cruelty and harassment for dowry after her marriage on January 28, 2024. She claimed she was driven out of her matrimonial home within two months and accused her husband and his family members of mental and physical abuse, including a demand for ₹20 lakh. However, a Division Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, after reviewing the chargesheet, found significant inconsistencies in the complaint. The Court noted that the complainant had suppressed her own employment details — she was working as a senior executive at a Pune-based health insurance company — while accusing the husband and his family of harassment and financial demands. The Judges observed that the couple had spent part of their short-lived marriage on a honeymoon in Manali and that the complainant's own travel records and admission contradicted several of her allegations. 'A fact that surprises is that it is stated that within two days only the mother-in-law started demanding an amount of ₹20,00,000/- as dowry. She states that she was abused; pinching words were given, she was asked to do the work in the house and was kept starving. It is hard to believe then that she states that within those two days even the sister-in-law started saying that the informant should be killed by pressing a pillow on her face,' the Bench said, adding, 'The applicants are well-educated persons and, therefore, it is hard to believe that within two days the relationship would go so bitter.' Criticising the police investigation, the Bench noted that the investigating officer failed to verify the allegations by visiting the matrimonial homes in Kharghar and Manmad. Instead, a panchnama was carried out at the complainant's father's house in Nanded with no meaningful corroboration of her claims. 'This is a classic example of misuse of Section 498-A,' the Bench declared. 'Nowadays even the police are not taking proper precautions and making appropriate investigations in such cases. This attitude is dangerous because genuine cases would suffer due to such apathy.' The Court also noted that many of the statements recorded from the complainant's family appeared to be 'copy-paste' versions lacking substance or independent verification. Quashing the criminal proceedings, the Judges invoked their powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, reiterating that courts must intervene in cases where prosecution appears to be driven by vengeance or is manifestly groundless. 'The institution of criminal proceedings with an ulterior motive can destroy lives,' the Bench noted, emphasising the need for caution in both filing and investigating matrimonial complaints.
