In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has stated that a husband asking his wife to maintain an Excel sheet tracking all household expenses cannot be termed as an act of cruelty to initiate criminal proceedings. The apex court made this observation on Friday while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) registered by a wife against her husband.
Bench Highlights Societal Realities
A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan underscored that while such behavior might reflect the dominant financial control often exerted by men in Indian households, it does not, in itself, form a valid basis for criminal prosecution. The court emphasized the need for a pragmatic approach in matrimonial disputes.
The bench explicitly noted, "The act of the accused of sending money back to his family cannot be misconstrued in a way that leads to a criminal prosecution." It further elaborated that the allegation of forcing the complainant to maintain an Excel sheet of expenses, even if accepted at face value, falls outside the legal definition of cruelty.
Allegations Scrutinized and Dismissed
The criminal case was initiated based on multiple allegations made by the wife. These included charges that her husband was sending money to his parents, constantly taunting her about her post-pregnancy weight, and showing a lack of care during and after her pregnancy. The husband, represented by advocate Prabhjit Jauhar, sought quashing of the FIR, arguing it was a misuse of legal provisions.
The Supreme Court, after examining the complaint, found the allegations to be "vague and omnibus" with no specific evidence or details provided for instances of harassment. The bench concluded that none of the accusations, individually or collectively, amounted to cruelty under criminal law.
Caution Against Misuse of Law
The ruling delivered a strong message on the careful handling of matrimonial complaints. The court stated that such cases often stem from the "daily wear and tear of marriage" and must be scrutinized with greater care to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of legal process.
"The said situation is a mirror reflection of the Indian society where men of the households often try to dominate and take charge of the finances of the women but criminal litigation cannot become a gateway or a tool to settle scores and pursue personal vendettas," the bench asserted.
Regarding the other personal allegations, the court remarked that while they might reflect poorly on the husband's character, they did not constitute cruelty severe enough to warrant dragging him through criminal litigation. The bench warned that invoking serious legal sections without specific details weakens the prosecution's case and casts doubt on the complainant's version of events.
By allowing the husband's plea and quashing the FIR, the Supreme Court reinforced the high threshold required to establish "cruelty" in criminal proceedings within a marital context, distinguishing between marital discord and legally punishable offenses.
