#498acase

Does refusing to intervene in a husband-wife dispute make relatives guilty of cruelty? Bombay High Court held that being a passive spectator, choosing not to interfere, or not actively supporting the wife cannot by itself constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

MUMBAI: In a judgment delivered on 8 May 2026, Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale of the Bombay High Court quashed a 498A case against a husband’s parents, brother and sister-in-law, while allowing the proceedings against the husband to continue.

The dispute arose from a marriage solemnised in January 2022. The wife alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical harassment by her husband and his family members, that her jewellery was retained by her in-laws, and that she was not allowed to freely visit or communicate with her parents. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

While examining the case against the relatives, the Court noted that most of the allegations were general, vague and lacking in specific details. The wife had accused her in-laws of abusing and harassing her, forcing her to do household work and supporting the husband during matrimonial disputes.

Read Also: Can Maintenance Be Reduced Or Cancelled Later? Indian Law Every Husband Must Know

However, the FIR did not clearly describe any specific acts by the relatives that would constitute cruelty under Section 498A. The Court also found contradictions in the allegations relating to jewellery and observed that the claims against the relatives were unsupported by credible material.

The Court noted that the brother-in-law and sister-in-law were employed and residing in Pune and that records placed before the Court supported their claim that they were not present during some of the alleged incidents. The allegations against them were found to be broad and omnibus in nature.

While discussing the law, the Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments dealing with misuse of Section 498A. Referring to Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, the Court reproduced the observation:

Read Also: Why I Believe 498A IPC / Section 85 BNS Needs Structural Reform To Prevent Misuse

“The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent.”

The Court also relied on Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, where the Supreme Court warned against the increasing tendency of implicating relatives of the husband through general allegations in matrimonial disputes.

Further relying on the recent judgment in Dara Laxmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, the Court quoted:

Read Also: Wife Filed False Case — What Should I Do Immediately? Legal Steps For Husband In India

“A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud.”

Justice Bhonsale observed that merely supporting the husband, remaining silent during marital disagreements, or being related to the husband cannot by itself amount to cruelty under Section 498A. The Court emphasized that criminal prosecution requires specific allegations and material showing active involvement in the alleged offence.

Read Also: What To Do If Wife Takes Child Away Illegally? Father’s Legal Remedies In India

Finding that the allegations against the parents-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law were vague, omnibus and unsupported by sufficient material, the Bombay High Court quashed the FIR and all criminal proceedings against them.

However, since the husband did not press for quashing, the case against him was left open to continue in accordance with law.

Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved

Case Details

Case Title: Najeem Mahamd Sayad & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition №4349 of 2022

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Bench: Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale

Date of Judgment: 8 May 2026

Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:22715-DB

Counsels:

For Petitioners: Mr. Jitendra Pathade

For State: Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP

For Respondent №2 (Wife): Adv. Poonampal, and Mr. Sachin Hande

Key Takeaways

Criminal law cannot be used to put an entire family on trial merely because they are related to one spouse in a matrimonial dispute.

Standing by a son, brother, or family member during marital disagreements does not automatically amount to cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

Every accused person must face prosecution only on the basis of specific allegations and credible evidence showing their individual role.

Laws meant to address genuine cruelty should not be stretched to indiscriminately implicate parents, siblings, and extended relatives without proof of active involvement.

Due process, individual accountability, and evidence-based prosecution must always prevail over collective punishment based solely on family relationships.

Click Here to Download Judgment — Najeem Mahamd Sayad & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr

This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.

Protect your rights with informed legal strategy and dedicated support in sensitive family and custody disputes. For expert guidance and strong representation, get in touch today.

In a significant ruling reinforcing the principles of dignity and fairness within marriage, the Allahabad High Court has held that no spouse can be compelled to continue a matrimonial relationship under the threat of malicious criminal prosecution. The Court granted divorce to a husband who had been living separately from his wife for nearly three decades, citing cruelty and prolonged desertion.

Key Observations by the Court

A Division Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh emphasized that false criminal accusations can severely damage an individual’s dignity and reputation. The Court observed:

“Legally, no spouse, whether male or female, may be expected to continue in a matrimonial relationship at the risk of malicious criminal prosecution.”

The judges noted that criminal proceedings—especially those involving arrest or trial—carry serious social and personal consequences, making it unreasonable to expect a spouse to endure such circumstances within a marriage.

Background of the Case

The couple married in 1992 but began facing marital discord within two years. In 1995, the wife left the matrimonial home and started living with her parents. Despite repeated reconciliation attempts by the husband, she did not return.

In 1999, the husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. However, the family court dismissed his plea and instead granted restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the wife.

Subsequently, the wife filed criminal charges against the husband under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, along with provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging cruelty and dowry harassment.

Court’s Findings

The High Court found serious inconsistencies in the wife’s allegations. Notably, her own brother testified that no dowry demand had ever been made by the husband. The Court concluded that the accusations were baseless and amounted to mental cruelty.

It also criticized the inclusion of the husband’s minor siblings in the criminal case, calling the allegations “reckless and unfounded.”

Cruelty Beyond Physical Aspects

The Court expanded the interpretation of cruelty in marriage, stating that it is not limited to physical abuse or lack of cohabitation. It highlighted that emotional and social companionship is equally vital.

The judges observed:

“The complete denial of company to one’s spouse, without any justifiable reason, may itself amount to cruelty.”

They further explained that marriage entails a mutual obligation to share companionship at all levels of human existence. Prolonged denial of such companionship, without cause, can deeply harm the other spouse.

Long Separation and Breakdown of Marriage

Taking note of the 29-year separation, the Court held that the marriage had effectively broken down beyond repair. It remarked that such prolonged estrangement destroys the “spirit and soul” of a Hindu marriage, which is traditionally considered a sacrament.

The Court concluded that continuing the marriage would cause further harm and emotional distress to the husband.

Final Verdict

Setting aside the family court’s earlier orders, the High Court dissolved the marriage and granted divorce to the husband. It also ruled that no alimony was required, noting that:

The wife is a government teacher employed since 1997

The couple has no children

No maintenance was claimed

Conclusion

This ruling underscores a progressive and balanced approach by the judiciary, recognizing that both men and women are entitled to protection from mental cruelty and misuse of legal provisions. It reinforces that marriage cannot be sustained at the cost of an individual’s dignity, reputation, and mental well-being.

The judgment serves as an important precedent in matrimonial law, especially in cases involving false criminal allegations and long-term separation.

Advocate Prithwish Ganguli

House # 73, near Tank #10, behind Matri Sadan Hospital, EE Block, Sector II, Bidhannagar, Kolkata, West Bengal 700091

M.: 9903016246