Regular Criminal Case No.290/2024 ; FIR (Crime No.301/2023) ; Under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC

Case Summerized by Advocate Rashid at Prime Advocates Delhi

Introduction

The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad bench delivered a noteworthy ruling on August 8, 2025, quashing an FIR lodged under the much-litigated Section 498A IPC. Court while quashing the FIR held that Remarks on Wife Clothes & Cooking Does Not Amount To Grave Cruelty.

Facts Of The Cases

Wife Allegations

• The Husband started mistreating her after one month or one and half months.
• She got the knowledge about ailment of husband when she got hospital documents. It is then the wife came to know that he was taking treatment from a psychologist. She came to know that he is not fit physically and mentally and all this information was suppressed by husband at the time of marriage.
• On 15.05.2022 both Sisters in Laws and Mother in law raised disputes with her and gave insulting treatment.
• Demanded Rs.15,00,000/ for purchasing Flat.

Why the Court Quashed the Charges

1. Pre-marital Transparency
   Chats exchanged before marriage—part of the formal charge sheet—clearly flagged the husband’s medical treatment. The court held this foreclosed any claim of suppressed disclosure.
2. Nature of “Cruelty”
   Explanation (a) to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code “cruelty” means – any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely todrive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; and as per Explanation (b) the “cruelty” means – harassment of the woman where such meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to. Making annoying statements that informant was not wearing proper clothes, was not able to cook food properly, cannot be said to be acts of grave cruelty or harassment.. Hence mere Remarks on Wife Clothes & Cooking Does Not Amount To Cruelty
3. Lack of Corroboration
   No neighbour or neutral witness was examined to validate the severity of alleged harassment. In the court’s view, the prosecuting agency failed to probe beyond the informant’s narrative.
4. Inconsistent Dowry Allegations
   The Rs.15 lakh demand appeared unfounded—especially since the groom already owned a flat at marriage.

Conclusion
The Aurangabad Bench thus allowed the Criminal petition and the quashed the FIR .

The post Remarks on Wife Clothes & Cooking Does Not Amount To Cruelty appeared first on Prime Advocates Delhi.

Summary of the judgment in CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 49/2024

Here are the key points and a concise, yet comprehensive summary of the case

Parties & Background

Petitioner: Mr. Sxxxxx; Respondent: Ms. Pxxxxx.

Marriage on 26 May 2017; one son born 23 August 2019.

Respondent (Wife) filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC on 6 October 2023

• Wife filed a maintenance Case before Judge, Family Court, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, (M.T.
  Case No. 522/2023).
• Wife Claimed cruelty and rental income of ₹4 lakhs+ for petitioner.
• Family Court (20 May 2024) ordered interim maintenance of ₹50,000/month for wife and child from petition’s filing till final order.

Interim Order Challenged

Petitioner (Husband) challenged the interim maintenance order.

Petitioner’s (Husband) Contentions

• Interim Maintenance amount as excessive,
• Submitted that he is unemployed and depended on his ailing mother.
• He further submitted that he has no real income and ancestral rental income is shared and received by his mother.
• Husband further submitted denial of fair hearing: adjournment denied when main counsel was ill.
• Respondent (Wife) is qualified and capable of self-support; alleged suppression of her own financial resources.

State’s & Trial Court’s Position

• Interim maintenance is a preventive as a social-justice measure.
• Detailed income proof unnecessary at this stage.
• Respondent (Wife) demonstrated genuine need.
• petitioner (Husband) made only “bare denials” without documentary backing (e.g. tax returns).

Legal Principles Applied

• Section 125 CrPC aims to prevent destitution of spouse/child pending trial.
• It is settled law that An able-bodied person cannot shirk his responsibility to maintain his wife and children. unemployment pleas are “bald excuses” without compelling proof (citing Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705).
• Husband’s statutory duty to maintain wife and child is “sacrosanct” (Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314).

Court’s Analysis

• Petitioner (Husband) admitted share in ancestral properties yielding ₹73,000/month.
• No credible evidence of petitioner’s inability to pay.
• Respondent (Wife) bears childcare costs alone and the child (aged ~5) who requires food, education, healthcare.
• Rs. 50,000/month deemed neither excessive nor disproportionate to parties’ living standards.

Delhi High Court Decision

• Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma while relying on Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705). held that it is settled law that An able-bodied person cannot shirk his responsibility to maintain his wife and children.
• Court further held Husband’s statutory duty to maintain wife and child is “sacrosanct” while relying on (Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314).
• Revision petition dismissed; interim maintenance order passed by District Court upheld.
• Petitioner free to submit fresh financial proof in Family Court at appropriate stage.

The post An able-bodied person cannot shirk his responsibility to maintain his wife and children : Delhi High Court appeared first on Prime Advocates Delhi.