In-Laws Failure to Take Action Against Son for Allegedly Torturing his Wife Is Not Cruelty

Case Details

Case Title: Dr. Saibhal Adhikary & Ors. V. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Case Type: CRR 460 of 2023

Coram: Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

Counsel for Appellants: Adv. Barun Kr. Das, Adv. Aritra Bhattacharyya, Adv. Priparna Sardar, Adv. Rahul Ganguly

Counsel for State: Adv. Sagar Saha, Adv. Nayana Mukhopadhyay

Judgement: 10 September 2026

Background

Silence Isn’t Cruelty: In-Laws Aren’t Automatically Liable for Their Son’s Acts

The case came before the Calcutta High Court following a matrimonial dispute arising out of the G.R. Case No. 5396 of 2021.The wife alleged that her husband had subjected her to physical and mental harassment. She also alleged that her husband had problems with alcohol and drugs and had behaved violently towards her. She also made allegations against her father-in-law and mother-in-law, stating that they knew about their son's behaviour but did not take steps to stop him. Apart from the husband's family members, a typist working in a pathology laboratory and the husband's driver were also accused in the case.

The accused persons approached the High Court and asked the Court to stop the criminal proceedings against them, arguing that there were no specific allegations showing that they had themselves committed any act of cruelty.

Issues

• Whether the in-laws’ failure to stop their son’s harassment can be considered cruelty under Section 498A IPC?

• Whether there were clear allegations against each petitioner showing their involvement?

• Whether Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC were applicable to the petitioners?

• Whether continuing the case against the petitioners would be a misuse of the legal process?

Sections

The following sections were involved in this case:

Section 498A IPC – Cruelty

Section 406 IPC- Criminal Breach of Trust

Section 34 IPC- Common Intention

Court’s Observation

The High Court carefully looked at the allegations and the material collected during the investigation. The Court found that the main allegations of physical and mental cruelty were against the husband. As far as the other accused were concerned, the allegations were mostly general in nature. The Court said that just because the parents-in-law did not take action against their son, it does not automatically mean that they themselves had committed cruelty against the wife. A person can be held responsible only when there are specific allegations or material showing that the person was actually involved in the alleged offence.

The Court also noted that criminal cases against relatives in matrimonial disputes should not continue merely because they are members of the husband's family.

Judgment

The Calcutta High Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the four petitioners. The Court found that the allegations against them were not specific enough to show their individual involvement in the alleged offences. The Court made it clear that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue against a person simply because of their relationship with the husband.

Significance

This judgment is important for matrimonial disputes because it draws a line between being related to the accused husband and actually participating in the alleged cruelty. There must be specific allegations and supporting material showing what each accused person actually did. The judgment therefore reminds us that while genuine cases of domestic cruelty must be taken seriously, criminal law should not be used against family members merely on the basis of vague or general allegations.

Call/WhatsApp: 89819 49111

OLQ LAW FIRM

Section 498A IPC in-laws liability| matrimonial dispute legal remedies| harassment by husband and in-laws| Section 498A allegations against family members