The Karnataka High Court has ruled that vague allegations against a mother-in-law—specifically regarding the denial of nutritious food and the preparation of Ragi balls exclusively for her husband—do not constitute the offense of cruelty. Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed criminal proceedings against a woman’s mother-in-law and three relatives, stating that general complaints about supervision and cooking habits lack the legal gravity to justify prosecution.
The court found that permitting an investigation to continue against the relatives based on such assertions would amount to an abuse of the legal process. In an order passed on August 5, the judge emphasized that the law requires specific instances of misconduct rather than broad grievances. The bench noted that the complaint failed to pinpoint exact roles or actions by the relatives that would meet the threshold for cruelty under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
“If the facts obtaining in the case at hand or the complaint is considered on the bedrock of the elucidation of law declared by the Apex Court… what would unmistakably emerge is, permitting further investigation even against these petitioners would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice,” the court stated.
Related: Kerala Court Upholds Jail for Van Driver
Allegations of Dietary Discrimination
The case originated from a complaint filed by a woman after her marriage, solemnized in May 2024, broke down within a year. She accused her husband, mother-in-law, and three other relatives of demanding dowry and subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty. The petitioners approached the High Court to quash the proceedings against them, while the husband did not challenge the First Information Report (FIR).
Based on the complaint, police had registered the FIR under Section 85 of the BNS, which addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the legal scrutiny focused heavily on whether the actions attributed to the in-laws actually constituted a crime.
Among the narrated incidents was a specific claim titled “Toxic mother-in-law.” The complainant alleged that her mother-in-law closely supervised her household work, instructed her on the quantity of spices to use, and forced her to serve her husband before eating herself. The court noted that the complaint detailed how the mother-in-law was said to be making Ragi balls only for the husband, denying the complainant food rich in nutrients.
Related: Telegram ruling forces every Indian platform to seek safe harbour
Distinction Between Husband and Relatives
While the complaint contained several detailed allegations against the husband, the accusations against his mother and other relatives were deemed too general. The court observed that the husband was accused of controlling the woman’s appearance, forcing her to use a specific shampoo that caused hair loss, and body shaming her. “The grievances galore against the husband,” the court recorded, distinguishing these specific claims from the vague assertions directed at the in-laws.
This judicial distinction highlights a growing trend where the judiciary separates specific, actionable grievances against a spouse from generalized complaints against extended family members. Courts have increasingly scrutinized the inclusion of in-laws in matrimonial disputes, moving away from automatic implication to a stricter scrutiny of specific acts. This approach reflects a shift to prevent the misuse of stringent penal provisions as leverage in separation cases rather than tools for genuine grievance redressal.
The bench clarified that it was examining only the case against the mother-in-law and the three relatives who had approached it, and not the allegations against the husband, who had not challenged the FIR. It held that the allegations against the relatives were insufficient to make out the offense of cruelty.
Related: Jupitice launches digital document signing solution
Legal Standards for Cruelty
The High Court relied on a series of Supreme Court rulings that warn against the routine prosecution of in-laws and extended family members in matrimonial disputes. The bench held that criminal proceedings could not be sustained in the absence of clear accusations identifying each accused’s individual role.
“Bald and vague allegations are made against the mother-in-law or even the other three accused,” the court stated. “In the considered view of the Court, they do not form the ingredients of the offence under Section 85 of the BNS or Section 498A of the IPC, the earlier regime.”
The court concluded that the allegations against the petitioners did not pass the legal test required for a trial. The proceedings were subsequently quashed, bringing an end to the criminal case against the mother-in-law and the three relatives. Advocate Ankith S Reddy appeared on behalf of the mother-in-law and three relatives. High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) Deepthi Alva appeared for the State, and the complainant’s advocate appeared in person.
