Bombay HC Quashes Section 498-A Against Cousin's Wife: Suspicion of Affair Is Not Cruelty Under IPC
The Bombay High Court quashed a Section 498-A prosecution against a woman accused solely on suspicion of an extramarital affair with the complainant's husband, finding no specific act of cruelty attributable to her.
The Bombay High Court has quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498-A, 107, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against a woman who was named as accused No. 2 in an FIR filed by her husband's cousin's wife. Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, sitting singly, held that the allegations against the petitioner were general, vague, and rooted entirely in the complainant's suspicion that the petitioner was having an extramarital affair with accused No. 1. The court found no specific act of cruelty, no dowry demand, and no credible material to connect the petitioner to any offence. The proceedings against the remaining accused, including the husband, were left undisturbed.
The FIR and the Petitioner's Position
FIR No. 83/2019 was registered on 7 October 2019 with Revdanda Police Station, Alibag, Raigad. The complainant, Respondent No. 2, married accused No. 1 on 2 February 2019. She alleged that a dowry of Rs 3 lakhs was given along with household articles including a fridge, television, washing machine, air conditioner, and furniture. She stated that harassment began three days after the wedding.
The FIR named six accused in total: the husband (accused No. 1), the petitioner (accused No. 2), and four other family members. The petitioner is the wife of the cousin brother of accused No. 1 — she is not a member of the matrimonial household.
The specific allegations against the petitioner were: that accused No. 1 spent time with her and chatted with her on the phone; that he had an extramarital affair with her; that he abused the complainant instead of speaking to her during a trip to Shirdi; that he had engraved the name of the petitioner's son on his hand; that he uploaded the petitioner's photographs on Facebook but not the complainant's; and that when confronted, accused No. 1 threatened to leave the complainant for the petitioner.
The petitioner sought quashing of R.C.C. No. 43/2020 arising from the FIR under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
What Section 498-A Requires
Before examining the facts, Justice Bhonsale set out the statutory framework. Section 498-A applies to the husband or a relative of the husband who subjects a woman to cruelty. The explanation to the section defines cruelty in two limbs: first, wilful conduct likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health; second, harassment with a view to coercing the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security.
The court emphasised that not every quarrel, argument, or act of misconduct between spouses or their relatives qualifies as cruelty. The conduct must carry a specific intent and severity — it must be of a nature that leaves the woman with no alternative but to commit suicide or cause grave injury, or it must be directed at extracting an unlawful demand for property. A stray or one-off act does not suffice.
The court also set out Section 107 IPC, which defines abetment through instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. For the petitioner to be liable under Section 107, there would need to be material showing she instigated, conspired with, or intentionally aided the commission of an offence.
Why the Allegations Against the Petitioner Failed
Examining the FIR and chargesheet, Justice Bhonsale found that every allegation against the petitioner was either general and vague, or premised on suspicion without supporting material.
The court noted that the petitioner was not residing with the accused No. 1 or the complainant. The families, though related, were not living together. There was no allegation that the petitioner participated in any act of physical violence against the complainant. There was no allegation that she made or participated in any dowry demand. The chargesheet contained call detail records between accused No. 1 and the petitioner, but no transcripts and no other cogent material.
On the allegation of an extramarital affair, the court drew on the Supreme Court's reasoning in K.V. Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 11 SCC 176, which held that even a proven extramarital relationship does not by itself attract Section 498-A. The prosecution must bring additional evidence showing that the accused conducted himself in a manner that drove the wife to contemplate suicide or caused grave mental cruelty of the requisite degree. Mere suspicion of an affair, without more, does not meet that threshold.
The court also referred to a coordinate bench decision in Swapnaja D/o. Rangnath Gadre v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 388 of 2008, which had held that even if a woman is the cause of bickering between spouses, and even if a husband ill-treats his wife on account of an alleged extramarital relationship, the third party cannot be held accountable under Section 498-A because she is neither the husband nor a relative of the husband within the meaning of the section.
On the charges under Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC, the court found no allegation in the FIR attributing any act of voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult, or criminal intimidation to the petitioner. Those charges, too, could not be sustained against her.
As for Section 107, the allegations of abetment were described by the court as general and vague, with no particulars of instigation or intentional aid.
The Court's Reasoning on Suspicion and Evidence
Justice Bhonsale observed that the petitioner's name appeared to have been included in the FIR in the manner common to matrimonial disputes — casually, as a relative, and on the basis of suspicion. The court held that suspicion must be grounded in reliable material capable of being translated into legal evidence at trial. It must be of a quality that makes a court pause at the first instance and conclude that a prima facie offence is made out.
In the present case, the court found that the suspicion was based on the complainant's subjective reading of accused No. 1's conduct and her own moral assessment of the situation. The fact that accused No. 1 spoke or chatted with the petitioner, or that he had engraved the name of her son on his hand — the court noted that if the petitioner is the wife of accused No. 1's cousin brother, her son would be accused No. 1's nephew — could not, even taken at face value, constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A.
The court stated plainly: “mere unfounded suspicion cannot substitute legal or cogent evidence.”
Justice Bhonsale also surveyed the line of Supreme Court decisions cautioning against the over-implication of relatives in matrimonial disputes. These included Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741; K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452; Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599; Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3473; Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263; and Dara Laxmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735.
The consistent thread across those decisions is that general and omnibus allegations against relatives, without specific acts attributed to each person, cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution under Section 498-A. The court in Geddam Jhansi had specifically observed that criminalising domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible material may have disastrous consequences for the institution of family, and that remaining a mute spectator to alleged harassment does not by itself constitute a criminal act.
The Husband's Proceedings Left Intact
Justice Bhonsale was careful to confine his findings to the petitioner alone. The husband, accused No. 1, was not a party to the writ petition and had not filed any separate petition for quashing. The court made no observations on the merits of the allegations against him or the other co-accused. The chargesheet had been filed against the other accused, and the court directed that the trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigad at Alibaug would proceed against them in accordance with law.
The court observed that the entire discord, as disclosed by the FIR, was between the complainant and her husband. The crux of the allegations revolved around accused No. 1's conduct. The petitioner's implication appeared to be a consequence of that matrimonial discord rather than evidence of independent criminal conduct on her part.
Order
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1158 of 2021 was allowed. R.C.C. No. 43/2020, arising out of FIR No. 83/2019 dated 7 October 2019 registered with Revdanda Police Station, Alibag, was quashed and set aside as against the petitioner only. The criminal proceedings in R.C.C. No. 43/2020 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigad at Alibaug were directed to continue against the remaining co-accused.