Asking Wife To Wash Clothes, Utensils At Relative’s House Not Cruelty Under 498A: Bombay HC

Can asking a woman to wash clothes and utensils at a relative’s house amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)? The Bombay High Court has ruled that such an act, even if the allegation is assumed to be true, does not by itself constitute cruelty under the law. The court also quashed criminal proceedings against six relatives of a woman's husband, citing vague allegations and a lack of specific details about their alleged roles.

In an order dated October 1, 2026, the high court held that the allegations did not disclose sufficient grounds to continue criminal proceedings against the six relatives under Section 498A of the IPC.

What were the allegations against the husband's relatives?

According to the court order, the woman alleged that her husband and his relatives taunted her for being unable to conceive a child and subjected her to mental and physical harassment. She also claimed that her husband took her to a relative's house, where she was asked to wash clothes and utensils.

The six relatives subsequently approached the high court, seeking to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings against them. They argued that the allegations were general in nature and failed to establish the individual role of each petitioner. They also maintained that they lived in different places, while the woman resided with her husband in Pune.

Why did the Bombay High Court quash the case against six relatives?

Justice Abhay Mantri observed that the allegations lacked specific details about when, where and how the alleged harassment took place. The court also noted that the woman's in-laws lived in different cities and that she visited their homes only occasionally.

“The allegations against the Petitioners are vague, omnibus and general in nature,” Justice Mantri observed.

Examining the allegation that the woman had been asked to wash clothes and utensils at a relative's house, the court held that the alleged act, even if true, did not meet the legal requirements for cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC.

“Apart from that, even assuming that she was asked to wash clothes and utensils, such an act does not constitute the ingredients of Section 498-A of the IPC and cannot be termed as cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC,” the high court said.

The court further highlighted the absence of specific particulars in the woman's complaint, including the dates, locations and circumstances of the alleged harassment.

“Moreover, Respondent No. 2 has not mentioned the time, date, place or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Thus, the FIR and the entire charge-sheet fail to disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC against the present Petitioners,” it added.

The high court also referred to Supreme Court judgments, including Kahkashan Kausar v State of Bihar (2022), which emphasise the need to carefully examine allegations against a husband's relatives, particularly when they live separately and face broad, unspecified accusations of harassment.

Does living separately protect a husband's relatives from prosecution?

The court clarified that living separately does not automatically shield relatives from prosecution. Instead, the decision hinged on the nature of the allegations and the absence of specific details establishing the alleged conduct of the six petitioners.

Their separate residences and infrequent contact with the woman were relevant considerations in assessing whether the criminal proceedings could continue.

The high court concluded that the FIR and charge sheet failed to disclose an offence under Section 498A of the IPC against the six relatives. It held that continuing the proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

What did the final order say?

The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR registered at Vijapur Naka police station in Solapur under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506, read with Section 34 of the IPC, along with the related criminal proceedings, but only insofar as they concerned the six petitioners.

The order did not quash the proceedings against the woman's husband. The court allowed the petition to that limited extent and made no order as to costs.