Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit Joshi has held that demand of money from a woman to cohabit with her husband would not amount to mental or physical harassment. 

• The Bombay High Court held in the case of MM v. State of Maharashtra (2025). 

What was the Background of the MM v. State of Maharashtra Case? 

• Mohammad Muddassar Mohammad Akhtar Quadri (Applicant) married Aaysha Mohammad Muddasar Kadri (Respondent) on 24th June 2022, according to Muslim rites. 
• The marriage involved several family members as co-applicants (seven). 
• On 24th July 2023, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against all seven applicants. 
• The FIR alleged offenses under: 
  • Section 498-A (Cruelty to married woman). 
  • Section 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt). 
  • Section 504 (Intentional insult). 
  • Section 506 (Criminal intimidation). 
  • Section 34 (Common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  
• The wife's allegations in the FIR included: 
  • After three months of marriage, she was taunted for being from a village and inability to cook. 
  • A demand was made for Rs. 5,00,000/- to secure her husband's permanent employment with Nagar Parishad. 
  • When she expressed inability to pay, she was allegedly told not to return for cohabitation. 
  • She informed her father, who along with relatives attempted mediation, but no settlement was reached. 
  • The husband allegedly went to her parental home and abused her. 
  • Other family members allegedly instigated against her cohabitation with her husband. 
  • Threats were allegedly made regarding her life if she failed to bring the money. 
• The case proceeded to become pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class.  
• The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to quash both the FIR and subsequent court proceedings. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Bombay High Court made several significant observations regarding the case: 
  • The Court first noted problems with the allegations' specificity.  
    • While the wife claimed mental and physical harassment, she did not provide specific details beyond general taunting.  
    • The Court found it implausible that all seven accused persons could have taunted her simultaneously. 
    • The Court questioned the residential arrangements presented in the complaint. It found it unusual that the married sister-in-law and her husband were alleged to be living in the same house as the complainant, when records showed they actually lived in a different locality in Aurangabad.  
    • The same was true for the cousin brother. 
  • Regarding the demand for Rs. 5,00,000, the Court observed that the complaint lacked critical temporal details.  
    • The wife did not specify when this demand was made or for how long it persisted.  
    • The Court noted that merely stating she should not return for cohabitation without any corresponding action would not constitute mental and physical harassment. 
  • The Court found serious issues with the investigation process. It criticized the police for: 
    • Recording witness statements that appeared to be "copy-paste" versions, showing identical paragraphs, punctuation, and fonts. 
    • Failing to show proper sensitivity in investigating such cases. 
    • Not interviewing neighbors from the matrimonial home. 
    • Only recording statements from the wife's relatives and her parents' neighbors. 
    • Not considering other available evidence or possibilities. 
    • Unnecessarily taking photographs and panchnama of the husband's house.  
  • The Court also made an important observation about charging all named accused persons.  
    • It stated that investigating officers should use their discretion to file charges only against those with strong evidence against them, particularly when accused persons live far away.  
    • The Court emphasized that unnecessary harassment and false implications should be avoided. 
  • The most crucial observation was regarding the FIR itself. 
    • The Court found it "as vague as possible" and determined that it failed to disclose the basic ingredients of the offenses under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.  
• Based on the above observations the Bombay High Court led to their conclusion that this was a fit case for exercising powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent an unjust trial, resulting in the quashing of both the FIR and the pending court proceedings. 

What Are the Provisions Related to Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS)? 

• Section 85 of BNS states: 
  • Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. 
    • Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 
  •  This provision was earlier covered under Section 498A of IPC. 
• Section 3(5) of BNS states: 
  • When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. 
  • This provision was earlier covered under Section 34 of IPC.