The Allahabad high court has held that a man calling his wife a “barren woman” during a quarrel over childlessness and exchange of abuses between them would not constitute cruelty under IPC Section 498-A.
Justice Indrajeet Shukla passed the order on August 13 on the petition filed by the husband challenging a Lucknow court order that had summoned him on a complaint alleging cruelty, dowry demand and intentional insult.
Criminal proceedings were quashed against him under Sections 498-A (cruelty by husband or relatives), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC and Sections 3/4 (giving or taking dowry and demanding dowry) of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The case arose from a troubled marriage in which the couple had been unable to have a child. During the dispute, the husband and his relatives allegedly called the woman a “barren woman”, while she, in turn, called her husband “impotent”.
The high court noted that the alleged remarks had to be viewed in the context of the matrimonial discord and the exchange of offensive language between both sides.
It observed that the husband’s alleged reference to his wife as a “barren woman”, though “insensitive and reprehensible”, could not by itself constitute cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC in the circumstances of the case.
“Mere taunts regarding childlessness, refusal to undergo medical examination, or verbal altercations arising from such domestic discord cumulatively without fulfilling essentials of cruelty envisaged under Section 498-A IPC, cannot by themselves constitute the offence of cruelty,” the court said.
The Bench concluded that the issue of childlessness had become the source of frustration in the marriage, resulting in allegations, counter-allegations and verbal abuse from both sides.
It found the prosecution's story, if read in its entirety and left uncontroverted, to be “highly improbable” and quashed the criminal proceedings against the husband.
The court also noted that the original complaint contained no allegation of a dowry demand, while such an allegation surfaced subsequently in the complainant’s statement. It held that the later statement could not be used to “fill the lacunas” in the original complaint.
