Denying wife kitchen access is mental cruelty, rules high court; mother-in-law gets relief but husband to face trial

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that preventing a wife from entering the kitchen of her matrimonial home constitutes mental cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The court refused to dismiss a First Information Report (FIR) against a husband based on this finding, while granting relief to his mother.

Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke stated that allegations against the husband indicated a prima facie case of cruelty. The court noted, "She was even not allowed to enter into the kitchen, and she was asked to bring the food from outside," adding that such conduct was sufficient at this stage to infer mental cruelty.

The case originated from a complaint filed by a woman in Akola. She alleged that after her marriage in November 2022, her husband frequently argued with her, controlled her movements, and stopped her from visiting her parents. She also claimed she was forbidden from cooking, forced to buy food from outside, and subjected to humiliation, including her belongings being thrown out and pressure to divorce.


The husband had argued that the complaint was a "counterblast" to his divorce petition and contained only general accusations. However, the prosecution and the complainant maintained that the accusations clearly established mental cruelty.

The court agreed with the prosecution, finding the allegations against the husband specific and indicative of wilful conduct causing mental harm. Conversely, the court observed, "There is general, omnibus and fake allegations only because she is mother-in-law of the complainant wife," and subsequently quashed proceedings against the mother-in-law.

The court reiterated that cruelty under Section 498A includes "any wilful conduct... likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health."

The court's order permitted the prosecution against the husband to continue, while setting aside the FIR and related proceedings against his mother. The verdict highlighted the need for specific allegations against each accused in matrimonial disputes.