4 min readNew DelhiJun 8, 2026 02:27 PM IST
First published on: Jun 8, 2026 at 12:30 PM IST
The Karnataka High Court recently held that caste-based abuses allegedly exchanged between spouses within the confines of their home would not, by themselves, attract offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as the law requires the insult to occur in a place within public view.
Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing a plea filed by a husband seeking quashing of an FIR and subsequent proceedings alleging dowry harassment and caste-based abuse by him against his wife.
“The allegations are vague with no specific instances of hurling of abuses in a public place or in a place within public view. The four walls of a house in which the husband and the wife in a quarrel allegedly hurl abuses taking the name of the caste would not mean that it would become an offence under the Act (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989),” the June 4 order read.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held that mere audibility of the exchange to neighbours would not satisfy the requirement of an insult being made in a place within public view.
‘Act of abuse not an offence’
- The high court found that the abuses were allegedly hurled between the husband and the wife within the four walls of the house.
- Mere audibility of the exchange to neighbours, the court held, would not satisfy the requirement of an insult being made in a place within public view under the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- The court partly allowed the petition and found the allegations under the Act unsustainable and permitting further trial against the petitioner for those offences would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
- However, the court held that the offences under the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are to be sustained and it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full-blown trial.
Marriage led to multiple cases
The petitioner and the complainant, his wife, got married in October 2017 at Hyderabad. However, the marriage allegedly soon ran into difficulties, triggering a series of legal disputes between the couple.
The husband first approached the police, alleging that his wife had attempted to stab him. Following the registration of that complaint, the wife filed proceedings before a family court seeking annulment of the marriage. Both matters remain pending.
Subsequently, in November 2022, the wife filed a complaint before the police at Bangalore, alleging harassment on demand of dowry and hurling of abuses, which was allegedly for the offences. The police conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet. The court concerned then registered a special case for the said offences.
Aggrieved by the same, the husband has moved this court.
Wife has habit of running away
Appearing in person, the husband contended that the complaint does not have any of the ingredients that are necessary to drive home the offences so alleged.
It was his submission that the estranged wife never showed any interest in marriage and was in the habit of running away.
He added that he himself registered a crime on the alleged act of his wife trying to stab him.
Wife unable to bear harassment
On the contrary, Additional State Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha opposed the submissions of the husband, contending that the allegation made in the complaint by the wife requires evidence at the least.
It was added that mere statements of the husband that there is no demand of dowry cannot be assessed in a proceeding.
It was further emphasised that the crime registered by the petitioner against the wife is also pending consideration at the hands of the police.
He also mentioned that after the said crime was registered, the wife was brought back to Bangalore by the police, unable to bear the harassment of the husband.
The Karnataka High Court found that the abuses were allegedly hurled between the husband and the wife within the four walls of the house. (AI-generated image) 
Justice M Nagaprasanna held that mere audibility of the exchange to neighbours would not satisfy the requirement of an insult being made in a place within public view.
Share
