Overview
- The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR against a 66-year-old advocate, holding that an allegation of taking a wife's jewellery by itself does not constitute cruelty under Section 498A.
- Justice Neena Bansal Krishna relied on the Supreme Court’s Arvind Singh ruling to define cruelty as conduct causing pain or distress, finding the jewellery claim insufficient on its own.
- The court clarified that Section 498A can apply even if a marriage is later declared technically invalid, adopting a purposive reading of the term husband.
- Delhi Police supported the petitioner in the jewellery case, and the judge noted the complainant’s uncorroborated claims of threats and concealment of her earlier divorce in the FIR.
- Separately, the Madras High Court restored an octogenarian husband’s conviction for prolonged mental and economic cruelty, upholding six months’ simple imprisonment, a ₹5,000 fine, and ₹20,000 monthly maintenance based on consistent testimony and corroborative circumstances.