Financial Dominance in Marriage: Does Not Qualify as ‘Cruelty’

The Supreme Court has ruled that monetary control over a wife by her husband cannot be considered “cruelty,” unless accompanied by tangible harm.

Background

• A woman had filed an FIR under Section 498A of the IPC (dowry harassment and cruelty) against her husband and his family. 
• She accused them of subjecting her to cruelty, including financial control, forcing her to maintain an Excel sheet of household expenses, and making her feel humiliated for gaining weight after childbirth.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

• Monetary Control as ‘Cruelty’: The Supreme Court held that  financial control or dominance over a wife does not, in itself, amount to cruelty unless it leads to mental or physical harm.
• Marital Struggles: The Court acknowledged that the situation reflected the common societal dynamics in India, where men may dominate finances within the household. 
• Call for Caution in Matrimonial Cases: The Court warned against using criminal litigation as a tool to settle personal grievances and called for greater scrutiny in marital disputes before invoking criminal procedures.
• Mental and Emotional Harm: The court viewed the woman’s allegations regarding her husband’s behavior, such as taunts about her postpartum weight and lack of care during pregnancy, as indicative of poor character, but not cruelty warranting legal action. 
  • The behavior described was considered part of the “daily wear and tear of marriage”.
• Need for Substantial Evidence: The judgment emphasized that cruelty cannot be established based on general or vague claims.

Section 498A of IPC

• Section 498A of the IPC addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman. 
• Section 85 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with Same Provision related to Cruelty
• Why Was Section 498A Introduced?
  • Section 498A was added to the Indian Penal Code in response to the rising number of dowry deaths and incidents of domestic violence during the 1980s. 
  • It was designed to provide legal protection to women who were facing: 
    • Physical and mental harassment
    • Dowry-related abuse
    • Coercion and violence within marriages
• Definition: This section defines cruelty as:
  • Wilful conduct that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or harm to her life, limb, or health (whether physical or mental).
  • Harassment intended to coerce the woman or any of her relatives to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security.
• Key Features of Section 498A
  • Punishment: Any husband or relative of the husband who subjects a woman to cruelty will be punished with imprisonment for a term that may extend to three years, along with a fine.
  • Time Limit: A complaint under this section must be filed within three years of the alleged incident.
  • Complaints: A complaint under Section 498A can be filed by the victim herself or by a close relative on her behalf if she is unable to file it herself.
  • Offense: 
    • The offense under Section 498A is cognizable, meaning that the accused can be arrested without a warrant. 
    • It is also non-bailable, implying that bail is not automatically granted and is subject to judicial discretion.
  • Applicability
    • Exclusive to Married Women: Section 498A specifically applies to married women facing cruelty from their husbands or relatives.
    • Definition of Husband: This term also includes live-in partners or individuals in customary or claimed marriages.
    • Definition of Relatives: The term covers individuals related to the woman by blood, marriage, or adoption.
  • FWC Referral (Family Welfare Committee)
    • Mandatory Screening: All 498A FIRs must be referred to Family Welfare Committees (FWCs) for evaluation.
    • Exclusions: FIRs involving serious crimes like dowry death do not follow the FWC process.
    • Neutral Composition: Each FWC includes three retired officers, mediators, or social workers.
    • Witness Ban: FWC members cannot serve as prosecution witnesses during the trial.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Landmark Judgments

• Arnesh Kumar Judgment (2014): The Supreme Court established guidelines to prevent unnecessary arrests under Section 498A, including the introduction of a checklist and enforcing the ‘notice for appearance’ rule.
• Satender Kumar Antil (2022): The SC reinforced institutional checks by directing bail for individuals arrested in non-compliance with the Arnesh Kumar directions.
• Mukesh Bansal vs State of U.P. (2022): The Allahabad High Court introduced a two-month cooling-off period post-FIR and referral to Family Welfare Committees for mediation, which was later endorsed by the Supreme Court in Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal (2025).

DOWNLOAD PDF