Husband or in-laws keeping child after marital dispute is not cruelty: Delhi HC

The court gave this ruling while hearing a case filed by an elderly couple who wanted a police case filed by their daughter-in-law against them dropped

A husband or his parents having custody of a child after a marital fight does not count as cruelty or harassment under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Delhi High Court has said.

(HT Archive)

Section 498A of IPC (replaced by Section 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, in effect from July 1, 2024), also called the anti-dowry law, protects women from cruelty by their husband or his family because of dowry.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna gave this ruling while hearing a case filed by an elderly couple who wanted a police case against them dropped. Their daughter-in-law had filed the case under many IPC sections, including 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives), 323 (causing hurt), 506 (criminal threats), and parts of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

In this case, the couple’s son — a Merchant Navy officer — married the woman in October 2007. They had a son. In January 2015, the husband filed for divorce. He said his wife kept threatening to file false cases and to kill herself. He also asked for custody of their son. In December 2015, the wife filed a complaint under the IPC and Dowry Act against her husband and his parents.

The couple said the daughter-in-law added their names in the complaint without any clear reason, only to trouble them, and that it was done in response to the divorce case.

On the other side, the woman said her husband and in-laws kept harassing her over dowry, and kept her away from her son to turn the child against her.

The court rejected the woman’s claim. In her 43-page order dated June 28 (released Wednesday), justice Krishna said, “The matrimonial differences led to the separation and the custody of the child was with the husband and the petitioners. However, merely because the child was in the custody of the husband after disputes inter se arose, cannot be equated with cruelty or harassment as envisaged under Section 498A IPC.”

Justice Bansal dropped the charges against the couple, saying the daughter-in-law’s complaint did not have clear claims of cruelty or dowry harassment. She had only made unclear statements about the in-laws wanting a car and money, without giving exact dates or events.

The judge called the case a “classic example of misuse of Section 498A by the woman” against her husband and in-laws.

“It is evident from the statement of respondent number 2 (wife) and the supporting witnesses that it is a case where the adjustment issue between the wife and her husband has been given a colour of dowry harassment. Present case is a classic example of misuse of the salutary provision of Section 498A IPC by the complainant.The contents of the complaint and the charge sheet clearly show that it is an abuse and misuse of the process of the court, resorted to by the complainant to use it as a tool for compelling the petitioners to relent to her expectations,” the court said.