Telling Her to Divorce & Remarry in a Higher Caste Is Not Cruelty: Bombay High Court Quashes Atrocities Act Case Against Sister-in-Law

"Saying such words like to take divorce and we will perform marriage with a girl of higher caste, do not establish the cruelty as there is no demand of money, dowry or cruelty driving her to commit suicide." - Bombay High Court at Aurangabad granting relief to the applicant Apurva Patil (applicant no. 4), the sister-in-law of the informant, by quashing proceedings against her under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court found that the continuation of the criminal trial against her would constitute an abuse of the process of law, especially in absence of direct allegations of caste-based abuse or cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.

Vague Allegations Do Not Justify Prosecution Under Atrocities Act and Section 498-A

In Criminal Application, the applicants sought quashing of proceedings arising out of FIR No. 134/2023 registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The primary contention involved allegations of caste-based humiliation and marital cruelty following an inter-caste marriage between the informant and accused no.1. The Court, however, chose to differentiate the role and liability of the sister-in-law from the rest of the accused.

Inter-Caste Marriage Met With Harassment and Abuse

The complainant had alleged severe post-marital harassment from her husband and in-laws due to her belonging to the Scheduled Caste community (Mahar). After marrying the accused in May 2021, she faced casteist insults, physical abuse, and emotional torture. Statements like “we do not want your caste’s generation to be spread in our family” and instructions to terminate her pregnancy, were among the gravest allegations.

She narrated incidents where she was kicked, slapped, threatened with death, and even allegedly forced into prostitution. The most chilling accusation was that the husband left the informant and their newborn on the footpath after refusing to take their child to the hospital.

However, the specific role of applicant no. 4, Apurva Patil, was limited to allegedly stating that the complainant’s husband could “marry someone from a higher caste” and that “divorce could easily be arranged”.

The High Court analyzed whether the alleged statement by the sister-in-law—though insensitive—could attract penal provisions under IPC or the Atrocities Act.

“No Specific Incident of Caste-Based Abuse By Applicant”

The Court noted: “It is alleged that the applicant abused the informant on the caste, however, particular incident is not stated by the informant as to when she was abused by the applicant on the caste”.

Moreover, the court emphasized that under Section 498-A IPC, mere mention of divorce or remarriage—absent demand of dowry or instigation to suicide—cannot amount to cruelty:

“She insisted her for the divorce, which certainly is not cruelty as contemplated by Section 498-A of the IPC.”

Citing Supreme Court Precedent: Mohammad Wajid Case

The Court relied on Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., (2023 SCC OnLine SC 951), wherein the Supreme Court emphasized that mere FIR allegations are insufficient to proceed with prosecution:

“The Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances... try to read in between the lines.”

Also cited was CBI v. Aryan Singh (2023 SCC OnLine SC 379) which reiterated that: “At the stage of quashing, the Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial.”

No Case Made Out Against Sister-in-Law

Concluding that the allegations against Apurva were vague and lacked essential elements of the charged offences, the High Court held:

“If the applicant (Apurva) is directed to face the trial, it would certainly be an abuse of the process of Court.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the application of applicant no. 4 and quashed the criminal proceedings against her, while permitting the trial to proceed against the other family members whose applications were withdrawn.

In quashing the case against the sister-in-law, the Bombay High Court reinforced the principle that criminal prosecution must be based on concrete, specific acts, not presumptive guilt by association. It further underlined that utterances, however inappropriate or offensive, must meet statutory thresholds to attract criminal liability—especially under stringent provisions like the SC/ST Act and Section 498-A IPC.

Date of Decision: 04 April 2025