The Bombay High Court has declined to dismiss an FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for cruelty against a Chembur resident, his father, and three married sisters. On July 22, Justices Ajay Gadkari and Neela Gokhale described the allegations against the sisters-in-law—specifically, coercing the complainant to demonstrate the cleanliness of her house via WhatsApp video call appear to be a peculiar and sadistic manner of ill-treatment
According to the FIR filed at Tilak Nagar police station, the couple, who married in December 2021, faced interference from the husband's sisters, despite the fact that the sisters live in their own homes. The sisters reportedly dismissed the house help and instructed their brother's wife to handle all household chores on her own.
The wife had to show them via video call the house cleaned by her. They sent her messages telling her what she should cook for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The petitioners made a WhatsApp group, and the husband’s sisters continued to berate her and complained to their brother. Her husband abused her and quarrelled with her, suspected her character, and refused to have conjugal relations with her, TOI reported.
On October 11, 2022, the husband’s sisters reportedly visited the couple's home, abused the wife, and demanded gifts from her parents. They allegedly expelled her from the house and confiscated her jewelry. The petitioners' lawyer, Vrushabh Savla, argued that the complaint stems from a matrimonial dispute that has been falsely framed as a criminal issue, claiming misuse of Section 498A. In contrast, the wife’s lawyer, Prerak Chaudhary, stated that the complaint has been supported by testimonies from her parents and uncle.
In the verdict, the judges said, “the FIR reveals that the complainant, a woman—a newlywed daughter-in-law— was pitted against the might of the five petitioners, who were abusing and ill-treating her on petty issues. The primary intent seems to be to extort money from her and her parents, as evidenced by their refusal to return her 'streedhan,' including valuable jewelry and personal belongings, even after expelling her from the matrimonial home.