The Karnataka High Court has reportedly dismissed a complaint filed by a woman against her husband under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was made after the man refused to provide money for his wife to purchase items necessary for a religious ritual (pooja).

The court determined that the allegations made by the wife in her complaint did not satisfy the necessary criteria to invoke Section 498-A, which pertains to charges of cruelty, against the husband.

This case revolves around a marital conflict between the petitioner and the complainant, who have been married for a duration of 15 years and share custody of their 14-year-old son. The wife initiated legal action by filing a complaint against the petitioner and additional family members, alleging various offenses, including Section 498-A, which deals with cruelty towards a married woman, as per the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the police conducted an investigation, and based on their findings, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner.

The charges against all the other family members who were initially named as accused were dropped. Consequently, the petitioner approached the court seeking the termination of all legal proceedings against him. The petitioner's argument was that the complaint did not contain the essential elements necessary to establish the alleged offenses under Sections 498-A, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In contrast, the wife's stance was that, while the complaint may have been poorly worded, it did indeed include allegations against the petitioner.

Upon examining the complaint, the bench observed that the wife had requested financial assistance from the petitioner to procure specific items for a religious ceremony (pooja), and the petitioner had refused to comply with this request. The complaint depicted this disagreement as a source of contention between the two parties.
The court noted that Section 498-A necessitates cruelty that results in grave injury or poses a threat to life. In this case, the complaint revolved around a minor disagreement between the spouses concerning financial support for a religious ritual, which seemed insufficient to qualify as cruelty under this section. Additionally, Sections 504 and 506, which pertain to insult and criminal intimidation, were invoked without substantial grounds, given the nature of the allegations presented in the complaint.

The Court further commented that it has become a common practice to include Sections 504 and 506 in almost every offense simply because they are non-cognizable. It pointed out that the dispute in question was confined to the husband and wife, and there was no indication of a breach of public peace. Consequently, the Court concluded that the petitioner had carelessly applied these provisions, considering the circumstances of the case. The Court also emphasized that Investigating Officers should exercise caution when applying these sections of  IPC, as they carry a potential punishment of two years of imprisonment.

The Court also identified discrepancies in the complainant's allegations and observed that she had delayed making accusations against her in-laws, which raised questions about potential ulterior motives. It expressed concern that nowadays, it has become a common practice for complainants to implicate all family members and, in some instances, even the husband, over minor grievances. The Court emphasized that such actions are often taken without considering the serious consequences that criminal proceedings can have on the accused and their family members.

In line with its findings and considerations, the Court granted the petitioner's request and dismissed the legal proceedings against him.