The Bombay High Court frees husband and quashed a 498A case against a husband and his family, ruling that minor remarks about a wife’s cooking or dressing do not amount to “cruelty.” The court observed that such allegations were exaggerated and lacked evidence.
Bombay High Court Frees Husband: The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench recently ruled that casual or annoying remarks about a wife’s cooking or clothing do not amount to “cruelty” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case was heard by a division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh, who quashed criminal proceedings against the husband, Tushar Sampat Mane, and his family members.
The court stated clearly:
“Making annoying statements that informant was not wearing proper clothes, was not able to cook food properly, cannot be said to be acts of grave cruelty or harassment.”
Background of the Case
The complainant, Bhagyashree Tushar Mane, married Tushar Mane in March 2022. It was her second marriage, following a divorce by mutual consent in 2013.
According to her complaint, the relationship was cordial for about a month after marriage, after which disputes began. She alleged that her husband’s mental health issues were hidden from her before marriage, that he was under psychological treatment, and that his family members harassed her mentally and physically.
She further claimed that her in-laws insulted her for not bringing gifts, demanded ₹15 lakh during Diwali to purchase a flat, and finally drove her out of the house in June 2023.
Husband’s and Family’s Defense
The husband and his family denied all allegations and sought to quash the FIR registered at Pundlik Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad.
Their counsel argued that the allegations were general, exaggerated, and lacked any evidence. The defense also pointed out that chat records showed the wife was aware of the husband’s medical treatment before the marriage.
The Court examined these records and observed:
“When the relationship gets strained, it appears that exaggerations are made.”
The bench noted that the chats between the couple, exchanged before marriage, revealed that the husband had openly mentioned the medicines he was taking. Therefore, the wife could not claim ignorance about his health condition.
The judges remarked:
“When everything was disclosed prior to the marriage and allegations are omnibus or of not so grave for befitting in the concept of cruelty contemplated under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, it would be an abuse of process of law if the applicants are asked to face the trial.”
Observations by the Court
The High Court highlighted that for any act to amount to cruelty under Section 498A IPC, it must fall within the meaning of the legal “Explanation” under the provision:
- It must either be conduct likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury to her physical or mental health.
- Or it must involve harassment aimed at forcing her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands for money or property.
The bench pointed out that in this case, none of the conditions were met. The complaint merely contained general and repetitive allegations without any specific or corroborative evidence.
“Now, except the statement of informant there is nothing in the charge sheet,” -the Court noted.
It also observed that the investigating officer did not even make inquiries with the neighbours to verify the claims.
The judges added that the so-called demands and remarks could not constitute “grave cruelty” as understood in law.
Final Decision
Finding the allegations vague and exaggerated, the Bombay High Court concluded that allowing the case to continue would be an abuse of the legal process.
Hence, the bench quashed all criminal proceedings against:
- Tushar Sampat Mane (husband)
- Sampat Dadu Mane (father-in-law)
- Mrs. Surekha Sampat Mane (mother-in-law)
- Mrs. Nutan Dinkar Metkari (sister-in-law)
- Mrs. Tanuja Nilesh Shinde (sister-in-law)
The court’s final observation underscores that every domestic dispute should not be criminalized under Section 498A without clear, specific, and serious allegations.
Explanatory Table of Laws & Sections Involved
| Section / Law | Provision Name | Meaning in Simple English | How It Was Applied in This Case |
| Section 498A IPC | Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband | Protects a wife from cruelty (mental or physical) by husband or in-laws. Cruelty means acts likely to drive her to suicide or cause serious injury, or harassment for dowry or property. | The wife alleged mental and physical cruelty, but the court found her claims exaggerated and unsubstantiated. Remarks on cooking and clothing didn’t qualify as “cruelty.” |
| Section 323 IPC | Voluntarily causing hurt | Punishes anyone who intentionally causes bodily pain or injury to another person. | No medical or independent evidence of any physical harm; thus, this section was not sustained. |
| Section 504 IPC | Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace | Applies when someone intentionally insults another to provoke them into committing an offense. | The alleged “taunting” by in-laws was found trivial and not enough to attract this provision. |
| Section 506 IPC | Criminal intimidation | Deals with threatening another person with injury to person, reputation, or property. | The allegations lacked specifics or proof of threats; the court ruled this section was wrongly invoked. |
| Section 34 IPC | Common intention | Used when multiple people commit an offense together with a shared intent. | As the court quashed the case, it found no evidence of shared criminal intent among family members. |
| Section 482 CrPC | Inherent powers of High Court | Allows High Courts to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of law or miscarriage of justice. | The court exercised this power to quash the 498A case as the allegations were omnibus (general) and lacked evidence. |
Case Summary
| Field | Details |
| Case Title | Tushar Sampat Mane & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. |
| Court | High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad |
| Case No. | Criminal Application No. 1380 of 2024 |
| Date of Reservation | 9th July, 2025 |
| Date of Judgment | 8th August, 2025 |
| Coram (Bench) | Justice Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh |
| Applicants (Accused) | 1. Tushar Sampat Mane (husband, 32 yrs, student) 2. Sampat Dadu Mane (father, 66 yrs, retired) 3. Mrs. Surekha Sampat Mane (mother, 55 yrs, homemaker) 4. Mrs. Nutan Dinkar Metkari (sister-in-law, 37 yrs) 5. Mrs. Tanuja Nilesh Shinde (sister-in-law, 35 yrs) |
| Respondents | 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Bhagyashree Tushar Mane (wife, 33 yrs) |
| Counsels for Applicants | Mr. Anshuman Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Mr. B.S. Deshmukh |
| Counsel for Respondent No.1 (State) | Mrs. R.P. Gour, Additional Public Prosecutor |
| Counsel for Respondent No.2 (Wife) | Mr. Raviraj Wakale (online) holding for Mr. Rahul Joshi |
| FIR Details | Crime No. 301/2023, registered on 12.08.2023 at Pundlik Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad |
| Trial Court Case No. | Regular Criminal Case No. 290/2024 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad |
| Sections Involved | Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code |
| Outcome | FIR and entire proceedings quashed for all five accused |
Key Takeaway
The Bombay High Court emphasized that not every domestic disagreement amounts to criminal cruelty. Remarks on household skills or attire — unless extreme or repetitive with intent to harm — cannot be treated as an offense under Section 498A IPC.
The judgment is another reminder of the Court’s consistent stand: 498A should not be misused for minor quarrels or exaggerated grievances in marital life.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advise.