Section 498A IPC | Asking Daughter-In-Law To Do Household Chores Like Washing Clothes & Utensils Does Not Amount To 'Cruelty': Bombay High Court

"Apart from that, even assuming that she was asked to wash clothes and utensils, such an act does not constitute the ingredients of Section 498-A of the IPC and cannot be termed as cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC." Bombay High Court has held that asking a daughter-in-law to perform routine domestic chores such as washing clothes and cleaning utensils does not attract the penal ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In an order passed by a single bench of Justice Abhay J. Mantri observed that general and omnibus allegations made against distant relatives residing in different cities, without attributing specific roles, dates, or places of harassment, cannot sustain criminal prosecution. Exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending against six in-laws.

The complainant married her husband and resided primarily with him in Pune, while her in-laws lived separately in Satara, Ambernath, Ulhasnagar, and Abu Dhabi. Following marital discord, the wife lodged an FIR at Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur, alleging that her in-laws taunted her for being unable to conceive, made her wash clothes and utensils at her sister-in-law's house, and instigated her husband to drive her out. After the police investigated the complaint and filed a charge-sheet in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solapur, the accused relatives approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR and the resultant criminal proceedings.

The primary question before the court was whether asking a daughter-in-law to perform domestic household chores amounts to cruelty under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The court was also called upon to determine whether vague, omnibus allegations against distant relatives residing in separate cities can sustain criminal prosecution in the absence of specific overt acts.

Domestic Chores Do Not Attract Section 498-A IPC

The High Court closely examined the complainant's assertion that she had been taken to her sister-in-law's house and compelled to do household work. Justice Mantri noted that, even if the prosecution's allegations were accepted at face value, the mere assignment of household tasks does not fit the legal definition of cruelty under the penal statute.

The bench observed that a prima facie evaluation of the record revealed no merit in the wife's claim that domestic work constituted penal harassment. The court categorically held that asking a married woman to perform ordinary household functions like cleaning utensils and washing clothes cannot be treated as an offence under Section 498-A IPC.

"Apart from that, even assuming that she was asked to wash clothes and utensils, such an act does not constitute the ingredients of Section 498-A of the IPC and cannot be termed as cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC."

Vague And Omnibus Allegations Lack Material Particulars

Addressing the allegations of verbal abuse and taunts regarding the complainant's inability to conceive, the court highlighted that the FIR failed to attribute any distinct role or overt act to the petitioners. The bench pointed out that the complainant had not mentioned the date, time, place, or the exact manner in which the alleged harassment took place.

The court observed that sweeping, collective accusations against family members without specific details cannot form the basis for putting relatives on trial. In the absence of material particulars, the court found that the charge-sheet failed to disclose the commission of any cognizable offence by the accused in-laws.

"Moreover, Respondent No. 2 has not mentioned the time, date, place or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Thus, the FIR and the entire charge-sheet fail to disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC against the present Petitioners."

Scrutiny Required When Relatives Reside In Different Cities

The bench laid considerable emphasis on the geographical separation between the parties, noting that the complainant lived with her husband in Pune while the relatives resided across Satara, Thane, and Abu Dhabi. The court remarked that since the complainant resided away from the matrimonial family and only visited them occasionally, the question of routine ill-treatment at their hands did not arise.

Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the bench reiterated that allegations made against close relatives of the husband who reside in different towns must be scrutinized with enhanced circumspection to prevent roping in innocent family members.

"Considering the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgments, the allegations in the FIR prima facie do not appear sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 498-A of the IPC against them."

The High Court placed reliance on the landmark rulings of the Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of U.P. and another, Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others, and Dara Lakshmi Narayana & others v. State of Telangana & Another. The bench underscored that the apex court has consistently warned against prosecuting distant relatives on generalized assertions in matrimonial disputes.

The bench concluded that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioners before the Magistrate would amount to an abuse of the judicial process. Consequently, the High Court held that it was an appropriate case to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent injustice and quash the proceedings against the distant family members.

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed FIR No. 0002 of 2025 registered at Vijapur Naka Police Station, along with the pending proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No. 1136 of 2025 before the JMFC, Solapur, solely to the extent of the six in-laws. The ruling reiterates the settled legal principle that routine domestic requests cannot be criminalised as cruelty, protecting distant matrimonial relatives from facing protracted criminal trials based on generic accusations.

Date of Decision: October 01, 2026