The Kerala High Court has ruled that body shaming a sister-in-law qualifies as “cruelty” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The court held that making derogatory comments about the complainant’s body and questioning her medical qualifications amounted to willful conduct that could harm her mental and physical well-being, thus constituting cruelty.

The verdict was delivered by a Single Judge Bench led by Justice A. Badharudeen, who dismissed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which sought to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the sister-in-law of the complainant.

The petitioner, who is the wife of the complainant’s husband's elder brother, had been accused of causing mental harassment to the complainant in her matrimonial home.

According to the prosecution, the complainant endured significant emotional distress due to remarks made by the petitioner regarding her body shape, including comments that her husband could have married a more attractive woman.

Additionally, the petitioner raised doubts about the complainant’s educational qualifications. These actions were deemed to be forms of cruelty as they inflicted harm on the complainant’s emotional and mental health.

The petitioner had argued that she should not be considered "relative" under Section 498A of the IPC, as the term only applies to individuals related by blood, marriage, or adoption. However, the court rejected this argument, affirming that such behavior falls within the legal definition of cruelty.

The Court held that spouses of siblings residing in the matrimonial home can indeed be considered "relatives" under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This ruling emphasized that such individuals, including the sister-in-law in this case, can be held accountable for actions that amount to cruelty under the provision, even if they are not directly related by blood or marriage to the complainant.

“When the married woman starts to reside at the matrimonial home, where the siblings of the husband are also residing along with their spouses, it cannot be held that the spouses of the siblings would not fall under the definition of ‘relative’ for the purpose of Section 498A of the IPC,” the court stated.

The Kerala High Court emphasized that the term ‘relative’ under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has a broad and inclusive scope. The court noted that this definition extends to individuals within a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), and it drew comparisons with similar definitions found in other legislations such as the Estate Duty Act, Income Tax Act, and Schedule I of the Companies Act. This interpretation, according to the court, ensures that the term is not restricted to immediate family members but also covers those who play a significant role within the familial structure, including the spouse of a sibling residing in the matrimonial home.

 It further elaborated, “Holding the said view, it could not be held in the instant case that the 3rd accused/petitioner herein, who is the wife of the elder brother of the 1st accused, would not come within the purview of the term ‘relative’ dealt under Section 498A of the IPC and this challenge is found to be in the negative.”