UTTAR PRADESH: <\/em>The Allahabad High Court<\/a><\/strong> has held that calling a wife a \u201cbarren woman\u201d<\/strong> during a matrimonial dispute over childlessness, in the background of mutual arguments and exchange of abusive words, does not by itself amount to cruelty under Section 498A IPC<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A bench of Justice Indrajeet Shukla<\/strong> allowed the husband\u2019s petition under Section 482 CrPC<\/strong> and quashed criminal proceedings against him for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC<\/strong> along with Sections 3\/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed that matrimonial disputes cannot automatically become criminal proceedings unless the essential ingredients of the offence are clearly established.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench remarked:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Mere taunts regarding childlessness, refusal to undergo medical examination, or verbal altercations arising from such domestic discord cumulatively without fulfilling the essential ingredients of cruelty envisaged under Section 498- A IPC, cannot by themselves constitute the offence of cruelty within the meaning of this penal provision”.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The petitioner married the complainant-wife in December 2015. The couple did not have a child even after three years of marriage, which allegedly resulted in frequent disputes between them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife alleged that she was repeatedly taunted for being unable to conceive and that during a quarrel on November 23, 2020<\/strong>, she was assaulted and confined inside a room.<\/p>\n\n\n\n She also made allegations against the husband\u2019s father and brother, but the Magistrate summoned only the husband for offences under Section 498A IPC<\/strong>, Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC<\/strong>, and Sections 3\/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband approached the Allahabad High Court<\/strong> challenging the summoning order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While examining the complaint and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC<\/strong>, the Court found that the dispute primarily arose from the issue of childlessness and involved arguments between both spouses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “These allegations, if taken at their face value, primarily portray a matrimonial discord arising for want of child leading to the exchange of offensive and insulting remarks between the spouses against each other, thus the same not being unilateral affair, rather both appear to be victim and offender for each other”.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court noted that calling someone a \u201cbarren woman\u201d<\/strong> was undoubtedly insensitive, but in the facts of the case, it did not fulfil the legal requirements of Section 498A IPC<\/strong> or Section 504 IPC<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench explained that a mere exchange of insulting words during a domestic argument is not enough to constitute an offence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The prosecution must prima facie establish that the alleged insult was intentional and of such a nature as to give provocation to the person insulted, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause the person to break the public peace or commit any other offence”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court found that the alleged words were spoken during a matrimonial quarrel:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “in the spur of the moment without any premeditation arising out of matrimonial discord”.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Bench further observed that, even if the allegation of calling the complainant a \u201cbarren woman\u201d<\/strong> and the heated arguments over childlessness were accepted as true, there was nothing to show that the words were spoken with the intention or knowledge required to constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also examined the allegations under the Dowry Prohibition Act<\/strong> and found that the original complaint did not contain any specific allegation regarding dowry demand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed that a later statement under Section 200 CrPC<\/strong> cannot be used to fill missing allegations from the original complaint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The allegations were found to be:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cpredominantly omnibus in nature\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cPermitting 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Bench also noted that the assault allegations lacked supporting medical evidence and that the summoning order did not provide sufficient reasons for proceeding only against the husband.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court held that forcing the husband to face a full criminal trial would serve no meaningful purpose and would amount to abuse of the criminal process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Allahabad High Court<\/strong> therefore set aside the summoning order dated January 17, 2023<\/strong> and quashed the criminal proceedings against the husband pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> What It Means<\/strong><\/td> Relevance In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 498A IPC<\/strong><\/td> Punishes cruelty by husband or relatives towards a married woman<\/td> Court held allegations did not disclose the essential ingredients required for cruelty<\/td><\/tr> Section 323 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt<\/td> Assault allegations against husband were found unsupported by sufficient material<\/td><\/tr> Section 504 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace<\/td> Court held mere exchange of abusive words during matrimonial fights is not enough<\/td><\/tr> Section 506 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Punishment for criminal intimidation<\/td> Proceedings were challenged along with other alleged offences<\/td><\/tr> Sections 3\/4 Dowry Prohibition Act<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Deal with giving, taking and demanding dowry<\/td> Court found lack of specific dowry demand allegations<\/td><\/tr> Section 482 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Power of High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure justice<\/td> Husband approached High Court seeking quashing of criminal proceedings<\/td><\/tr> Sections 200 & 202 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Procedure for recording complainant and witness statements before summoning<\/td> Court examined these statements while deciding whether prosecution should continue<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Particulars<\/strong><\/td> Details<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Case Title<\/strong><\/td> Hirendra Kushwaha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/td><\/tr> Court<\/strong><\/td> High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Case Number<\/strong><\/td> Application U\/s 482 No. – 10841 of 2025<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Date Reserved<\/strong><\/td> 17 July 2026<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Date Delivered<\/strong><\/td> 13 August 2026<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Bench<\/strong><\/td> Hon\u2019ble Justice Indrajeet Shukla<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Applicant\/Petitioner<\/strong><\/td> Hirendra Kushwaha (Husband)<\/td><\/tr> Opposite Parties<\/strong><\/td> State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Lucknow and Another<\/td><\/tr> Nature of Petition<\/strong><\/td> Petition under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS)<\/strong> seeking quashing of summoning order and criminal proceedings<\/td><\/tr> Impugned Order Challenged<\/strong><\/td> Summoning order dated 17.01.2023<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Criminal Case Number<\/strong><\/td> Complaint Case No. 96681 of 2021 (Nancy Verma Vs. Hirendra Kushwaha and Others)<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Trial Court<\/strong><\/td> Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Counsel for Applicant(s)<\/strong><\/td> Shobhit Singh, Ajai Kumar Singh, Piyush Gupta, Rifat Naaz<\/td><\/tr> Counsel for Opposite Party(s)<\/strong><\/td> G.A., Chandan Srivastava, Pranshu Agrawal<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n