The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has delivered a balanced judgment in a dowry harassment case — offering relief to the husband’s family while allowing the case against the husband to proceed.
In a ruling dated October 8, 2025, the Bench comprising Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande quashed criminal proceedings against the husband’s mother, aunt, and sister, observing that the allegations against them were “general and omnibus” in nature. However, the Court found specific and credible accusations against the husband himself and refused to quash the proceedings against him.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the wife, who alleged that after marriage she was harassed by her husband and in-laws because her wedding was not conducted according to their family’s social status. She also claimed that her husband demanded ?50 lakh from her parents to expand his business. Following her complaint on April 9, 2019, an FIR was registered at Mankapur Police Station, Nagpur, leading to a charge sheet under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 498A (cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 420 (cheating).
The Arguments
The husband and his family argued that the complaint was retaliatory, filed as a counterblast after the husband had pronounced “Talaq” nearly two months earlier. They further contended that the allegations against the relatives were vague and without substance — especially since the husband’s sister was pursuing her studies in the USA even before the marriage took place.
They also questioned the legality of the husband’s arrest, alleging that the police failed to follow the proper procedure laid down under Section 41 of the Cr.P.C.
The State and the complainant opposed the plea, asserting that there were clear and detailed accusations against the husband, and that the arrest was made only after due process.
The Court’s Findings
The judges carefully distinguished between the roles of the husband and his relatives.
On the relatives: The Bench noted that the allegations were sweeping and non-specific, emphasizing that merely being related to the husband cannot justify criminal prosecution. Referring to past Supreme Court rulings like Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State of Bihar, the Court reiterated the judiciary’s concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC, which was meant to protect women from cruelty, not to implicate every family member.
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s observation that “implicating every member of the husband’s family without concrete evidence amounts to an abuse of the process of law.”
On the husband: The Bench found specific instances of cruelty and dowry demand mentioned against the husband. Hence, it held that a prima facie case was established and that proceedings against him should continue.
On the arrest: The judges noted that the husband had appeared voluntarily before the police and that the Investigating Officer had recorded the reasons for arrest as required. Therefore, they rejected the argument that the arrest was illegal.
Final Verdict
The High Court partly allowed the criminal application:
1. The charge sheet and all related proceedings were quashed against the mother, aunt, and sister of the husband.
2. The application was rejected concerning the husband, and the trial against him will proceed.
The Human Side
This judgment reflects the Court’s effort to strike a delicate balance — recognizing the genuine grievances of women facing cruelty in marriage, while also protecting innocent family members from the stress and stigma of baseless criminal trials. It serves as a reminder that justice demands both sensitivity and fairness, ensuring that the law punishes the guilty without ensnaring the innocent.
