Stopping wife from entering kitchen is cruelty, Bombay high court refuses relief to husband

NAGPUR: The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court held that preventing a wife from entering the kitchen of her matrimonial home amounts to mental cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, refusing to quash an FIR against the husband while granting relief to his mother.

In a recent order, Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke found that the allegations against the Nagpur-based husband disclosed a prima facie case of cruelty, while those against the mother-in-law were vague and nonspecific. The court said, “She was even not allowed to enter into the kitchen, and she was asked to bring the food from outside,” adding that such conduct was sufficient at this stage to infer mental cruelty.

The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman in Akola, who alleged that after her marriage on Nov 29, 2022, her husband frequently quarrelled with her, restricted her movements and prevented her from visiting her parental home. She further alleged that she was barred from cooking, forced to procure food from outside, and subjected to humiliation, including having her belongings thrown out and being pressured to seek divorce.

Challenging the FIR, the husband argued that the complaint was filed as a “counterblast” to his divorce petition and contained only general allegations. The prosecution and the complainant opposed the plea, maintaining that the accusations clearly established mental cruelty.

The court agreed with the prosecution, observing that the allegations against the husband were specific and indicative of wilful conduct causing mental harm. At the same time, it noted, “There is general, omnibus and fake allegations only because she is mother-in-law of the complainant wife,” and quashed proceedings against her.

Explaining the legal framework, the court reiterated that cruelty under Section 498A includes “any wilful conduct… likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.”

Partly allowing the husband’s application, the court permitted prosecution against the husband to continue, while setting aside the FIR and related proceedings against the mother-in-law.

Key Takeaways from HC verdict:

• FIR against husband upheld as court finds specific and credible allegations
• Proceedings quashed against mother-in-law due to lack of concrete evidence
• Rejects husband’s claim that complaint was retaliatory to divorce proceedings
• Observes cruelty includes mental harassment and coercive conduct, not just physical abuse
• Emphasises need for specific allegations to sustain criminal charges in matrimonial disputes
• Highlights need for specific allegations against each accused in matrimonial disputes