Introduction
In Dr. Hiralal Konar & Anr. Versus The State of West Bengal and Anr, The Calcutta High Court ruled that expecting an educated and earning wife to share household expenses does not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose after a wife accused her husband and in-laws of physical, emotional, and economic abuse, along with dowry harassment. She claimed they forced her to pay EMIs for a flat and subjected her to humiliation. Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta dismissed these charges, holding that ordinary marital expectations cannot be criminalised.
Facts of the Case
The wife filed a complaint at Patuli Police Station on March 15, 2022. She alleged that her husband and in-laws subjected her to physical, sexual, verbal, economic, and emotional abuse. They allegedly demanded dowry and forced her to pay EMIs for a jointly held apartment. She also claimed that her husband attempted to strangle her, and that her mother-in-law forced her to feed their child even when she was hungry.
She further alleged caste-based mockery, humiliation, and threats. However, the complaint lacked specific dates, times, or details of the alleged incidents. The only two dates mentioned were July 14, 2017, when she claimed assault that required treatment at an Army hospital, and November 2020, another clash involving the child.
The prosecution did not supply medical records or injury reports to back these claims. The chargesheet also failed to link particular accused persons to specific acts. No independent witnesses supported her stories of abuse, and a neighbour under Section 161 CrPC denied witnessing any quarrel or assault.
What the Court Says
Justice Gupta quashed the entire case. He ruled that routine expectations, such as an educated and earning wife contributing to household expenses, making purchases online during the COVID-19 lockdown, feeding a child, do not amount to cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
He emphasized that paying EMIs on a jointly owned apartment or a father taking a child out are common parts of domestic life. Such acts cannot be construed as cruelty simply because they occur.
The court also found the allegations to be vague and unspecific. The complaint lacked details about when, where, or how the alleged offences occurred. No prima facie evidence emerged during investigation. The SC/ST Act did not apply because insults allegedly occurred indoors and not in public view. Sections 406 and 506 IPC were similarly inapplicable given the lack of substantiation. The court noted the accused’s right to be protected from unjust and oppressive criminal proceedings.
Further, the wife did not file any complaint between 2011 and 2022, despite claiming prolonged cruelty. The court considered this delay and concluded that the invocation of criminal law in such circumstances amounted to abuse of process.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Implication
This ruling clarifies that ordinary marital expectations and shared responsibilities cannot be twisted into criminal cruelty. An educated and earning spouse’s contribution to household expenses, participation in family decisions, or caregiving duties do not qualify as abuses. Courts must require specific and credible evidence before allowing criminal proceedings under cruelty statutes.
The judgment underscores the principle that not all marital discord or inconvenience justifies criminal charges. Vague and sweeping allegations without proof can lead to unnecessary harassment and legal oppression. It also serves as a warning against misusing Section 498A and related provisions for collateral gain.
For future cases, litigants and lawyers must state allegations with clarity. Courts will likely demand medical evidence, witness accounts, or other firm material before treating domestic issues as criminal matters. This judgment helps preserve the integrity of cruelty laws while ensuring they protect genuinely vulnerable individuals.
