The Calcutta High Court has ruled that asking an educated and earning wife to contribute to household expenses or pay EMIs for a joint property does not constitute ‘cruelty’ under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
In a significant judgment quashing criminal proceedings against a doctor and his son on September 3, 2025, Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta clarified that routine incidents of domestic life and mutual financial responsibilities cannot be stretched to attract the stringent provisions of the anti-dowry law.
The case originated from a criminal revisional application filed by Dr. Hiralal Konar and his son, seeking to quash proceedings initiated by the son’s wife. Their marriage was first registered in April 2011 and later solemnized in January 2014 according to Hindu rites. The couple welcomed a daughter in December 2019.
On March 15, 2022, the wife filed a complaint at Patuli Police Station alleging physical, mental, and economic abuse by her husband and in-laws. The allegations included criticism of her appearance, caste-based slurs, assault, dowry demands, and neglect. Based on this, charges under IPC Sections 498A, 406, 506, the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were invoked.
The husband’s councel argued that the complaint was vague, omnibus, and concocted to harass the family. He pointed out that the investigation was mechanical and that essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not established. Specifically, under the SC/ST Act, he argued the insult did not occur in “public view,” a mandatory condition.
Justice Gupta scrutinized the complaint, case diary, and witness statements, and found several shortcomings:
The cruelty charges lacked specific dates, times, or medical evidence.
The alleged caste-based insult occurred within the matrimonial home, not in public view. Referring to Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, the Court held that such allegations could not sustain a charge under the Act.
The Court noted that routine expectations—such as contributing to household expenses, paying EMIs for joint property, making online purchases during the Covid-19 lockdown, or being asked by a mother-in-law to feed the child—cannot constitute “cruelty” under Section 498A.
The Court highlighted the long gap between marriage and the first report in 2022, despite allegations of cruelty since inception, casting doubt on the credibility of claims.
The Court also cited the Supreme Court ruling in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, which warned against the misuse of Section 498A IPC to settle personal scores.
Case Title:
Dr. Hiralal Konar & Anr. Versus The State of West Bengal and Anr.
