‘Hair loss from shampoo change, no rich diet’: Court cancels woman’s FIR against mother-in-law

Justice M Nagaprasanna set aside the FIR filed by the wife against the mother-in-law and distant relatives.

The wife had registered an FIR against her in-laws and husband on April 5, 2025. As per the FIR, the wife has accused the husband and the mother-in-law of committing cruelty against her. The wife has alleged that the husband used to pick arguments with her because she visited her parents weekly, and the mother-in-law used to interfere in these arguments and convert them into a fight. The wife claimed that the husband and his uncle had defamed her by calling on her family group by calling her insane and lying about her mental health.

The wife has also contended that the husband was physically and mentally abusive. According to the wife, the mother-in-law used to torture her in different ways, including not allowing her to eat food until the husband had eaten and she was not given nutrient-rich foods, as her mother-in-law used to make ragi balls only for the husband. The wife has also claimed that the mother-in-law used to body shame her and her husband had forced her to change her shampoo and straighten her hair.

The High Court observed that there were multiple allegations against the husband, like “the mother-in-law is said to be making ragi balls only for the husband. The complainant was not given food rich in nutrients. The husband is said to have forced her to apply some kind of shampoo, which had resulted in her hair loss and used to body shame her for her appearance,” but the husband, who was supposed to answer for the allegation, had not approached the court.

The court was of the view that since the mother-in-law and distant relatives had sought relief from the court and the wife had made “vague” allegations against the in- laws, the offence of cruelty was not made out against them. Accordingly, the high court set aside the FIR against the in-laws and the distant relatives.

‘Torture’

Advocate Ankith S Reddy appearing for the in-laws argued that the husband was not before the Court as he was facing investigation and the other accused being the mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and the relatives of the husband did not have anything to do with the dispute between the husband and the wife.

Advocate Deepthi Alva appearing for the state argued that at least an investigation must be done as there do exist certain allegations which become “ingredients of the offence”. The wife was also present, and she took the court through every document to show that the in-laws used to torture her and therefore, a criminal case must not be set aside against them.