The Bombay High Court has recently ruled that making disparaging remarks about a wife's cooking or attire does not constitute "grave cruelty" under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This section, now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a wife, which is a cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offense.

The ruling came as the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court quashed a criminal case against a husband and his family. Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh presided over the division bench that delivered the judgment, emphasizing that annoying statements about a wife's inability to cook properly or wear appropriate clothes do not qualify as acts of grave cruelty or harassment. The court observed that strained marital relationships often lead to exaggerations, and allegations should be carefully scrutinized.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by a woman who married in March 2022. She alleged mental and physical harassment by her husband and in-laws, starting shortly after the marriage. Her accusations included that her husband's mental health issues were hidden from her before the marriage and that he was undergoing psychological treatment. She also claimed that her in-laws insulted her for not bringing gifts, demanded Rs 15 lakh for a flat during Diwali, and evicted her in June 2023. The husband and his family then approached the High Court to quash the complaint.

The court found the allegations to be general and lacking in evidence. It highlighted that the police did not question neighbors during the investigation to corroborate the wife's claims. Furthermore, chat records indicated that the wife was aware of the husband's mental health condition before the marriage.

The High Court referenced the definition of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC, which requires the conduct to be of a nature likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health. The court concluded that the allegations in this case did not meet this high threshold. The bench stated that when everything was disclosed prior to the marriage, and the allegations are not grave enough to be considered cruelty under Section 498-A, it would be an abuse of the legal process to subject the applicants to trial.

The court clarified that cruelty, as defined by Section 498-A, includes willful conduct that could drive a woman to suicide or cause severe harm to her life, limb, or health, whether mental or physical. It also covers harassment with the intention of coercing her or related individuals to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security.

In its final decision, the High Court allowed the application, quashing the criminal proceedings against the husband and his family. This ruling reinforces that while marital disputes and strained relationships can lead to exaggerated claims, not all complaints qualify as criminal cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC.