Is it cruelty under Section 498A if mother-in-law asks woman to make dosa or ragi mudde? Karnataka HC asks

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday expressed reservations about a woman's claim that she was subjected to marital cruelty by her husband and in-laws, on finding that her allegations of cruelty included being asked to prepare dosas and ragi balls (ragi mudde).

Other allegations made in the woman's complaint included her being denied nutritious food, being made to wait for her husband to finish eating before she could eat, and hair loss because of how she was allegedly treated by her in-laws, noted Justice M Nagaprasanna.

The judge questioned whether such allegations could amount to the offence of cruelty to married women under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (now replaced by Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).

"Your hair loss, asking you to prepare dosa, asking you to prepare ragi ball, not giving you nutritious food - will that amount to harassment on demand of dowry or cruelty under Section 498A? ... Mother-in-law asking you to make ragi ball for the husband is wrong? Hair loss is Section 498A?" he remarked.

The judge also referred to another allegation that the husband had compelled the wife to change her shampoo.

"'He forced me to change my shampoo from Meera to Dove.' What is this? All this nitty-gritty cannot become cruelty," the Court remarked after reading the complaint.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the mother-in-law and other relatives of a woman (complainant) who sought directions to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them. The complainant, a lawyer, appeared personally before the Court (as party-in-person) and opposed the plea.

During the hearing, the Court repeatedly questioned if the allegations raised by her were sufficient to prosecute her in-laws for a crime.

"If you have an axe to grind, don't project it as a 498A case. If you have really suffered something, please tell me. What is it that they have done against you?" the judge asked.

Referring to allegations that the mother-in-law required that the complainant to eat only after her husband finished breakfast, the judge observed that,

"'I was asked not to eat until my husband ate and he preferred hot dosas. He would finish breakfast at 10 AM and only then I had my food.' Can that be the ingredient of Section 498A? Is it not the kind of skirmishes that happen in a family?"

Justice Nagaprasanna observed that such allegations may constitute grounds in divorce proceedings but not necessarily criminal offences.

"All these allegations can be advanced in divorce proceedings. You cannot elevate them to the position of cruelty. All these nitty-gritty family issues cannot become matters of crime," the Court said.

Appearing in person, the complainant advocate maintained that she had suffered both physical and mental cruelty during the marriage.

She submitted that she possessed audio and video recordings, including material allegedly produced by her husband before the family court, which would support her case.

The complainant went on to submit that she was not provided nutritious food and was made to survive on "dosa, rice, soppu and dal every day" while others in the family consumed better food.

She claimed that the alleged treatment caused severe hair loss and scalp-related problems.

She further alleged that her mother-in-law prevented her from entering the kitchen, that her salary was handed over to her husband, leaving her with no money of her own. She claimed that her mother-in-law would make her husband sleep separately, forcing the wife to remain confined to her own room.

According to her, she stayed in the matrimonial home for about five-and-a-half months before leaving due to the alleged cruelty.

The complainant also alleged that the in-laws questioned her character, abused her and her family in public near her mother's residence, and spread allegations suggesting that she had run away with another man, thereby defaming her.

Appearing for her husband, Advocate Manish Rao clarified that the proceedings against the husband had already been withdrawn and that the present petition concerned only the husband's relatives, including his mother, two uncles and a friend.

After hearing the parties at length, the Court reserved its judgment.