Overview
- The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR where the core claim was that a husband took his wife's jewellery, finding the allegation and other vague threats insufficient to establish cruelty under Section 498A.
- In the same case, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that Section 498A can apply even if a marriage is later declared void, relying on the Supreme Court’s Reema Aggarwal precedent because the parties lived as spouses.
- In a separate ruling, Justice Amit Mahajan cautioned against over-implication of distant relatives and set aside proceedings against a husband’s maternal aunt and her daughter, stating that mere taunts or general family friction do not amount to cruelty.
- The Madras High Court reinstated a trial court’s conviction of an octogenarian husband for sustained mental and economic cruelty, ordering six months’ simple imprisonment, a ₹5,000 fine, and upholding ₹20,000 monthly maintenance.
- Across the decisions, the courts cited Supreme Court guidance on the meaning of cruelty and used inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash omnibus allegations while recognizing credible, sustained abuse.