Taunting wife for childlessness reprehensible, not criminal cruelty: Allahabad High Court

“The address as ‘barren woman’ could not be termed as cruelty particularly when there are exchange of filthy verbal blows from both the sides…the allegation of calling the complainant a ‘barren woman’, though undoubtedly insensitive and reprehensible, does not, in the facts pleaded, by itself satisfy the ingredients of intentional insult…Mere taunts regarding childlessness, refusal to undergo medical examination, or verbal altercations arising from such domestic discord cumulatively without fulling essential of cruelty envisaged under Section 498-A IPC, cannot by themselves constitute the offence of cruelty within the meaning of the said penal provision,” the court said on August 13.

The dispute centred on the couple’s inability to have a child. According to the complaint, the man and the woman got married on December 14, 2015, and had no child even after three years of marriage. The wife alleged that she was taunted by her matrimonial family over childlessness and referred to as a “barren woman”. The high court emphasised that such allegations must be assessed on the facts of each case and must disclose the statutory ingredients of cruelty before criminal proceedings can continue.

Justice Indrajeet Shukla said the allegations against the husband were “predominantly omnibus in nature” and lacked the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences. (Image enhanced using AI)

Court examines Section 498-A allegations

Advocate Chandan Srivastava, appearing for the wife submitted that the husband refused a medical examination despite her requests, leading to repeated disputes over having a child. The counsel said the dispute escalated on November 23, 2020, after she showed him medical reports on wife’s ability to conceive.

He also alleged that wife’s father-in-law and brother-in-law raped her, though the magistrate summoned only the husband of the woman. The high court said it was not deciding the rival versions but whether the allegations disclosed the offences.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Madhya Pradesh vs Yogendra Singh Jadon & Another, the advocate for the wife argued that the high court should not exercise its power where the allegations required evidence at trial. He further submitted that the truthfulness of the allegations and disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated in the proceedings.

On Section 498-A, the court held that the “barren woman” remark, in the circumstances of the case, did not amount to cruelty, as there was no material linking it to an unlawful demand or conduct likely to cause grave injury or danger to her health. It said the quarrel stemmed from childlessness and involved offensive remarks exchanged by both spouses.

No specific dowry demand

The high court found no specific dowry demand in the original complaint. A later statement made a broad allegation without specifying the date, time, amount or article, while the wife’s mother and brother also made no such allegation. The court said the material did not support the Dowry Prohibition Act charges.

It also found the Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) IPC assault allegation unsupported, noting the absence of details about the alleged injuries and any medical or treatment records. While medical evidence is not mandatory in every such case, its absence was significant given the general nature of the allegation.

Criminal process can’t become weapon

Examining the surrounding circumstances, the high court found the allegations “predominantly omnibus in nature”, with individual roles insufficiently specified. It said allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to permitting criminal process to be used “as a weapon in a matrimonial dispute rather than as a means for redressing a genuine criminal wrong.”

“The complaint fails to disclose the necessary ingredients of the principal offences for which the criminal machinery has been set in motion. Permitting such prosecution to continue would amount to allowing the criminal process to be used as a weapon in a matrimonial dispute rather than as a means for redressing a genuine criminal wrong,” the court said.

The court also considered the allegations concerning the alleged rape by the wife’s father-in-law and brother-in-law. In the circumstances presented, it described the prosecution story as “highly improbable” and said it was necessary to look beyond the literal allegations and examine the attending circumstances.

The high court ultimately allowed husband’s petition, set aside the January 17, 2023 summoning order under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and set aside the entire proceedings in the case pending before the trial court.