Gauhati High Court: Quarrels Between Husband & Wife Or Demand Of Divorce By Husband Or His Relatives Do Not Amount To Cruelty U/S. 498A IPC

The Gauhati High Court has held that quarrel between husband and wife or demand of divorce by husband or his family members do not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking quashing of the Charge Sheet and the proceedings in respect of case registered under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act against the Petitioners.

The single judge bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia observed, "Quarrels between husband and wife or the demand of divorce by the husband or his relatives do not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498(A) of theIndian Penal Code. Subjecting a married woman to cruelty for want of dowry was the reason for which our legislature has inserted Section 498(A) in the Indian Penal Code. In the case in hand, there is no allegation of demand of dowry. Moreover, the allegation under Section 67 of the I.T. Act, is admittedly, based on suspicion."

The Petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate B. Dutta while the Respondents were represented by Senior Advocate G.N. Sahewalla.

Facts of the Case

It was the claim of the Respondent that soon after her marriage to the Petitioner, she was tortured by him and her in-laws. They pressurized her for divorce as the Husband used to tell her repeatedly that she was not his choice and he did not want to continue his married life with her. As a result, her life turned miserable and she developed ailments. She was not allowed to meet her friends and wasn't provided personal pocket money to take care of her needs. It was alleged that the Petitioners always tried to send her back to the house of her parents.

On some occasions, while she was staying with her parents, the Petitioners never asked her to come back. In spite of that, the petitioners always took the her to social functions, just to show that they were having a good relationship with her. She came back to her home after a quarrel with the sister-in laws and has been staying there ever since. It was her major allegation that the family conspired to malign her character to make a ground for divorce by making the servant voice mail her asking to establish physical relation.

Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code was inserted into the Code to prevent abuse of married women for want of dowry and the legislative intent behind insertion of Section 498(A) must be respected. He averred that the word ‘cruelty’ appearing in Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, means harassment or torture of married women for want of dowry only. He submitted that the Respondent No.2 never alleged that the Petitioners ever demanded dowry from her. He also submitted that the allegation brought against the present Petitioners, so far as Section 67 of the I.T. Act is concerned, it was her own calculation or hypothesis.

Reasoning By Court

The Court accepted the submission of the Counsel for the Petitioners and noted that the Respondent never alleged that the Petitioners ever demanded dowry from her and only claimed that her husband did not like her and his family members were putting pressure upon her for divorce.

"This Court has sufficient reasons to agree with the petitioners that the word “cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code is to be established in the context of Section 498(A), as it may be different from other statutory provisions. Mr. Dutta has rightly submitted that Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code was inserted in the Code with a specific legislative intent and the said legislative intent must be respected by the courts of our country. In Manju Ram Kalita (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there was no evidence of cruelty on the part of the appellant with a view to drive her to commit suicide. Therefore, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant from the charge of Section 498(A) of the IPC," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Abhishek Sureka and 3 Ors. vs. The State of Assam & Anr. (2025:GAU-AS:2654)

Appearances:

Petitioners- Senior Advocate B. Dutta, Advocate S. Deka

Respondents- Senior Advocate G.N. Sahewalla, Advocate S. Todi

Click here to read/ download Order