Bombay High Court quashes Section 498A cruelty case against matchmaker who hid husband's impotency

The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently quashed a cruelty case against a matchmaker (also a family friend of the husband) who was accused of hiding the groom’s impotency before marriage. [Kalidas Sopanrao Landge and Ors v State of Maharashtra and Anr]

The Court ruled that he cannot be prosecuted for the offence of cruelty to wife under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code since he is not a relative of the husband.

"Section 498-A of the I.P.C. stipulates that whoever, being the husband or the relatives of the husband of a woman, subject such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment...Therefore, applicant No.5 cannot be prosecuted, as he is not a relative of the other applicants." the court said in its July 2 order.

A Bench of Justice V V Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh also cleared the woman’s mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and paternal aunt of similar charges, citing lack of specific allegations and evidence.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by a woman who alleged that after marrying in November 2016, she faced sustained mental and physical cruelty from her husband and in-laws.

According to her complaint, her husband never fulfilled her marital rights due to impotency, a fact which was deliberately concealed by the matchmaker who had arranged the alliance.

She also accused her father-in-law of attempting to get physically close to her and claimed that her in-laws, including the mother-in-law and sister-in-law, repeatedly demanded ₹1 lakh for a sofa and television.

The family allegedly took her gold jewelry, sold it and later drove her out of the house.

The woman further claimed that when her parents approached the matchmaker to intervene, he allegedly supported the in-laws’ demand for money instead of mediating.

With no resolution at the Women’s Grievance Redressal Cell, she approached the police, leading to an FIR being filed and a subsequent charge-sheet submitted in court.

The counsel for the accused family members argued that the allegations against the women were vague and lacked specific incidents of cruelty, and that the matchmaker could not be tried under Section 498A since he was not related to the husband. They contended that forcing them to face trial would amount to misuse of the legal process.

The court agreed.

“As far as applicant Nos.2 to 4 (in-laws) are concerned, their roles are not specifically stated by the informant, particularly the overt act. General and vague allegations are made against these applicants, which are not sustainable. The essential ingredients of Sections 498A, 354A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC to constitute the cruelty, etc. are not establishing (sic) from the charge-sheet against these applicants,” the Court said.

Continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process of Court, the Court said while quashing the FIR and charge-sheet against the matchmaker and the other female relatives.

However, the Court allowed the father-in-law to face trial after his plea was withdrawn during the hearing.

Advocate Fayaz K Patel appeared for the husband's relatives.

Additional Public Prosecutor VK Kotecha appeared for State .

Advocate VR Jain represented the State government.

[Read Order]