‘Impotent’ man, ‘barren woman’ remarks sparked marital fight: Why Allahabad HC refused to treat the exchange as cruelty under Section 498A

The Allahabad High Court recently gave relief from criminal cases of Dowry and cruelty (498A) filed by a wife against a husband. Even though the couple stayed happy for the first three years of their marriage, however, even after three years when they could not get a child out of their wedlock, the couple became frustrated and angry. This anger and resentment ultimately resulted in an violent outburst where they blamed each other and exchanged harsh words, with him calling her a barren woman and her calling him impotent.

Moreover, to support her claims of him being the problem behind their lack of a child, she underwent a medical test. This medical test confirmed that there was nothing wrong with her. However, he dismissed this medical test results as false and refused to get himself tested. This escalated the tensions in their relationship even further.

When the dispute reached the Allahabad High Court, the court observed that during the altercation, the complainant (wife) herself called her husband impotent, a eunuch and incapable of fathering a child, whereafter the quarrel escalated.


So the Allahabad High Court said that these allegations, if taken at their face value, primarily portray a matrimonial discord arising for want of child leading to the exchange of offensive and insulting remarks between the spouses against each other, thus the same not being unilateral affair, rather both appear to be victim and offender for each other.

Ultimately, the Allahabad High Court ruled that mere taunts regarding childlessness, refusal to undergo medical examination, or verbal altercations arising from such domestic discord cumulatively without fulling essential of cruelty envisaged under Section 498- A IPC, cannot by themselves constitute the offence of cruelty within the meaning of the said penal provision.

Likewise, the Allahabad High Court said that the allegation of calling her a ‘barren woman’, though undoubtedly insensitive and reprehensible, does not, in the facts pleaded, by itself satisfy the ingredients of intentional insult with intent or knowledge to provoke a breach of the peace so as to attract Section 504 IPC, especially in the background of abuses and counter abuses by parties.

Thus, the high court observed that these criminal cases filed by her depict a strained matrimonial relationship and domestic discord rather than the commission of the criminal offences as alleged by her.

Also read: Mental cruelty: Know how a husband won a divorce battle in High Court as wife mocked his physical infirmity; Permanent alimony amount to be decided

Keep reading to know more about this case and how the husband won.

What led to this matrimonial dispute?

On the night of November 23, 2020, she got into a huge quarrel with him and, in the heat of the moment, she angrily called him “impotent”, which allegedly enraged him and her brother-in-law, and so they tried to show her their manhood.

Smt Verma, her mother, in her court statement recorded under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), said : “.....He (husband, son-in-law) used to defame her (wife) by alleging that she was infertile. In response, my daughter (wife) called everyone impotent and eunuchs ("namard" and "hijra"). Enraged by this, her brother-in-law and father-in-law raped her. My daughter narrated this incident to me. She remained extremely withdrawn and silent, and it was only with great difficulty that she disclosed these facts.”

After this alleged ‘incident’ which happened on the night of November 23, 2020, she fled to her parental home in the morning when her mother-in-law had opened the door. However, when she suddenly without informing came to her parental home, her mother and brother assumed she must have come to see them and would go back to her matrimonial home after some time.

But her mother could sense something was bothering her, so she asked her about what happened. However, she told her nothing out of fear and social stigma and instead remained silent and isolated herself.

Moreover, her brother and mother at that time were busy with their father’s dialysis and kidney issues, so they also did not press her so much after a while.

However, when her father became a little better and, with the passage of time, when her mental condition also improved, she narrated the entire incident to her family members. Hearing the incident which allegedly happened with her, her father’s blood pressure spiked, and he had to be hospitalised.

Nonetheless she gathered enough courage to go to Ghazipur police station on July 31, 2021, and filed a complaint with the police. However, the police did not take any action, she approached the court. On April 5, 2022, under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure her statement was recorded.

In her statement, she told that she had gone to her matrimonial home after the vidai, on the second day of the marriage. According to her, however, her husband showed little interest in her.

In her statement, she said that when sufficient time passed after their marriage, her mother-in-law, father-in-law and neighbours started saying, “Why aren't children being born?” This childless issue led to quarrels between her and him.

In her statement she said that when she pressed him harder, he used to say, “If you want to have a child, get it done from wherever you want, I won't do it.” However, after a considerable time passed, he said, “I have several problems; I cannot father a child.” After this, when she asked him to get a medical check-up, he would say, “I am a gazetted officer; I earn crores; what is the problem?” These were the matters over which fights would happen.

Ultimately she lost the case in Allahabad High Court on August 13, 2026.

Also read: Wife sought higher maintenance citing husband’s wealth; High Court rejects plea but orders Rs 46 lakh for daughters' education

Why did the wife lose the case in high court?

Sohil Shah, Partner at Pioneer Legal said to ET Wealth Online that the Allahabad High Court observed that, the pleadings revealed a mutual exchange of verbal blows and offensive remarks from both sides, with the wife retaliating by calling the husband impotent. It was further observed by the Allahabad High Court that the dispute stemmed from deep frustration over childlessness, resulting in spontaneous, heat-of-the-moment clashes without prior intent.

Eventually, the high court noted there was no express statement or evidence that the remark was made with the specific intent or view to drive the complainant to suicide or cause grave physical or mental injury to her life and limb or with a view to demand any money or property from the complainant wife.

Shah says: "Thus, the high court held that the offence of cruelty under 498A of IPC was not made out."

According to Shah, Section 498A was never intended to criminalise every marital dispute or isolated instances of domestic discord. Genuine cruelty requires establishing continuous, wilful harassment or targeted harassment often tied to dowry demands, whereas ordinary disagreements involve mutual, isolated insults made in the heat of a domestic argument.

According to Shah, courts generally filter out cases where mutual incompatibility, minor taunts, and frustrated verbal altercations are exaggerated into criminal complaints to ensure the penal provision is not weaponized to settle personal scores.

Allahabad High Court order

Here's a summary of the Allahabad High Court judgement:

Heated exchange of words in a matrimonial fight can’t amount to cruelty

The high court came to the conclusion that there is an absence of any specific averment which demonstrates that the alleged intentional insult (barren woman) was of such a nature that it is likely to provoke a breach of the peace or the commission of any other offence, the essential ingredients of Section 504 IPC remain unfulfilled.

So prima facie, the high court said that Section 504 IPC case can’t be made based on these allegations.

Case law referred to: Supreme Court in the case of Fiona Shrikhande vs State of Maharashtra & Anr (2013) 14 SCC 44.

The Allahabad High Court said that her allegations predominantly disclose a matrimonial unrest arising out of the issue of childlessness and the consequential strained relationship between the spouses. Thus the high court said that these allegations, by themselves, portray an unhappy matrimonial relationship and incompatibility between the parties.

The Allahabad High Court said: “Section 498-A IPC, however, is not intended to criminalise every marital disagreement or every instance of domestic unpleasantness.”

Merely calling someone barren women does not attract 498A

The Allahabad High Court observed that merely calling someone as “barren women” (infertile) would not attract the essential ingredients of the offence under section 498 A IPC as there is no positive statement of fact that such address was with a view to drive her to commit suicide, or causing grave injury or endanger her life, limb or physical or mental health.

The high court also said that even if the cruelty allegation is tested for second part of Section 498A, there is no material allegation of harassment with a view coerce her or any person related to her to fulfill any unlawful demand of property /valuable security or such harassment is occasioned by the failure to meet such demand.

The Allahabad High Court said: “Entire complaint is bereft of any allegation meeting out the ingredients of offence under section 498-A IPC; thus, continuance of criminal prosecution in such penal provision is nothing short of a flagrant abuse of process of Court.”

Dowry allegations are not made out since it lacks specifics

The Allahabad High Court said that after examining the statement of witnesses i.e., her mother and brother, it comes out that they also failed to level any allegations of demand of dowry, thus, summoning under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act again exhibits mechanical exercise by learned Magistrate.

The Allahabad High Court said that criminal prosecution is not a panacea for all evils arising out of matrimonial discords.

The high court also said that if her complaint, her statement and the statutory enquiry by the magistrate is fully read then there is not even a single word suggesting giving or taking dowry.

The rape allegations are also without proof

The high court said that the rape allegations can’t be proved as per Section 323 of IPC.

The Allahabad High Court said that she only alleged the accused persons assaulted her on the night of November 23, 2020, but she is conspicuously silent as to the nature, extent, and location of the injuries allegedly sustained by the complainant. Significantly, no medical examination, injury report, treatment record, or any other contemporaneous medical document has been placed on record to lend prima facie support to the allegation of physical assault.

The high court also said that while it is true that a medical report is not an indispensable requirement in every prosecution under Section 323 IPC, but where the allegation of assault is general, omnibus, and unsupported by any contemporaneous material, the absence of any medical evidence assumes significance in assessing whether the essential ingredients of the offence are prima facie disclosed.

Case law referred: Mahmood Ali v. State of U. P (2023) 15 SCC 488

Thus with the above discussions, the high court quashed the criminal trial of the husband and gave him relief.