In matrimonial disputes under Indian law, the concept of cruelty carries profound implications. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)/Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) was enacted to protect women from harassment, both mental and physical, at the hands of their husbands and in-laws. Yet, as matrimonial conflicts grow increasingly complex, courts are repeatedly asked to delineate what conduct constitutes “cruelty” and what merely falls within the scope of normal domestic expectations.
The Calcutta High Court in Dr. Hiralal Konar & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (C.R.R. 2329 of 2022, decided on 03.09.2025) confronted this very issue. Among other allegations, the wife claimed she was compelled to contribute to household expenses and pay EMIs for a jointly owned flat, which she argued amounted to cruelty. The Court’s analysis not only addressed this question but also clarified the limits of criminal liability in domestic settings.
Factual Background
The complainant (opposite party no. 2) married petitioner no. 2, a geologist, in 2011 (registration) and again in 2014 (Hindu rites). They had a daughter in 2019. Soon after, disputes arose, leading the wife to lodge complaints alleging:
- Repeated physical assaults and attempts at strangulation.
- Verbal abuse, including caste-based insults from the husband and mother-in-law.
- Economic harassment, including pressure to pay EMIs for their jointly purchased flat and to buy essential items for the child.
- Denial of food, medicines, and household necessities.
- Emotional trauma caused to her and the child.
The FIR led to charges under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 34 IPC; Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act; and Section 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The petitioners approached the High Court under Sections 401 and 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the proceedings, contending that the allegations were vague, omnibus, and unsupported by evidence.
Key Allegations Relating to Economic Cruelty
The complainant specifically highlighted economic aspects of alleged cruelty:
- The husband did not bear the expenses for furniture and fixtures in their flat.
- She was compelled to purchase essential items for the child during Covid-19 lockdown.
- The in-laws restrained her from accessing the flat but forced her to continue paying EMIs.
As a working woman, she was allegedly “pressurised” to contribute financially despite the husband being employed.
These allegations became central to the question: Does asking an earning wife to share household expenses amount to cruelty under Section 498A IPC?
Issues Before the Court
- Whether allegations of economic contribution and EMI payments constituted cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
- Whether vague and generalised accusations without specific instances, dates, or medical proof could sustain charges.
- Whether alleged caste-based insults attracted Section 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the continuation of proceedings in light of inconsistencies and lack of prima facie evidence would amount to an abuse of the process of law
Court’s Analysis
1. Nature of Matrimonial Life and Domestic Expectations
The Court emphasised that in conjugal life, both spouses are expected to share mutual responsibilities. An educated, earning wife may reasonably be expected to contribute to household expenses, especially in cases of joint ownership.
“Routine expectations of contributing towards household expenses, making online purchases during the Covid-19 lockdown, or being asked to feed the child by the mother-in-law, cannot, by any stretch, constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC.”
Thus, financial contributions or EMI payments in themselves do not amount to cruelty.
2. Distinction Between Cruelty and Domestic Discord
The Court drew a crucial distinction: not every unpleasant incident or demand within a marriage constitutes legal cruelty. For Section 498A to apply, the conduct must be of such a nature as to cause grave mental or physical injury, or to compel unlawful dowry demands.
Normal domestic frictions—such as disputes over expenses, parenting decisions, or household chores—fall outside the ambit of criminal cruelty.
3. Vagueness and Absence of Specific Allegations
The Court noted that most allegations lacked particulars of date, time, and manner. Only two specific incidents (2017 assault and a 2020 altercation) were cited, but no medical records or corroboration supported them.
Witnesses, including neighbours, did not corroborate claims of violence or public humiliation. Inconsistencies between the wife’s FIR and her later statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC further weakened the case.
4. Caste-Based Allegations Under SC/ST Act
The Court held that insults allegedly made by the mother-in-law inside the matrimonial home did not occur “in public view,” a statutory requirement under Section 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST Act. Hence, the provision was inapplicable.
5. Precedents on Misuse of Section 498A
The Court relied on Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2025) and reiterated the Supreme Court’s caution against vague, omnibus allegations:
- Sweeping accusations against entire families must be scrutinised.
- Section 498A, though enacted to protect women, is often misused as a tool of vendetta.
- Only clear, specific, and corroborated allegations can sustain prosecution.
6. Quashing of Proceedings
Applying the principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal (1992), the Court found that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process, since allegations did not prima facie disclose any offence under 498A IPC, Dowry Prohibition Act, JJ Act, or SC/ST Act.
Thus, the proceedings were quashed.
Broader Legal Principles Emerging
A. Economic Participation by Wife is Not Cruelty
The Court made it clear that in modern marriages, particularly where both spouses are educated and earning, sharing household expenses is a natural expectation. Unless coupled with coercion, violence, or unlawful dowry demands, asking a wife to contribute financially cannot be termed “cruelty.”
B. Need for Specificity in Allegations
Courts require precise details of cruelty—dates, times, corroboration, and medical evidence where applicable. Generalised grievances or retrospective narratives are insufficient.
C. Safeguards Against Misuse of Section 498A
The judgment reinforces the judiciary’s consistent stance that Section 498A should not become a tool for harassment. While protecting genuine victims, courts must guard against frivolous prosecutions.
D. Scope of SC/ST Act in Matrimonial Disputes
Caste-based insults must occur in public view to attract penal provisions. Private matrimonial disputes within the home ordinarily do not fall within the ambit of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Comparative Perspective
Indian courts have, on several occasions, addressed the issue of economic contribution by wives:
- In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000), the Supreme Court stressed that cruelty under Section 498A involves conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury. Mere demands for household contributions do not suffice.
- In Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand (2003), the Delhi High Court observed that wives, particularly those who are earning, may reasonably be expected to share financial responsibilities.
Conversely, where such demands are linked to dowry harassment or coercion, they may constitute cruelty.
The Calcutta High Court’s decision aligns with this line of jurisprudence, striking a balance between protection and misuse.
Social Context: Changing Gender Roles
This judgment also reflects broader social realities. With increasing participation of women in the workforce, financial responsibilities within households are often shared. To criminalise such expectations would undermine the principle of equality in marriage.
At the same time, the Court was careful to distinguish between legitimate sharing of expenses and coercive demands linked to dowry or abuse. The latter remain punishable under law.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court in Dr. Hiralal Konar & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. has delivered a nuanced judgment clarifying the boundaries of cruelty under Section 498A IPC. It held that asking a working wife to contribute to household expenses or repay EMIs for a jointly owned flat does not amount to cruelty.
The ruling underscores three key takeaways:
- Conjugal Responsibility – Marriage entails mutual respect and shared obligations, financial and otherwise.
- Specificity in Criminal Law – Vague, unsupported allegations cannot sustain serious charges of cruelty or atrocity.
- Guarding Against Misuse – Section 498A IPC must be applied carefully to prevent harassment of innocent spouses and relatives.
Ultimately, the judgment reinforces a balanced approach: protecting genuine victims of cruelty while preventing misuse of criminal law as a weapon in matrimonial discord.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams