New Delhi, Sept. 9: The Supreme Court has quashed criminal complaints a woman had lodged against her Australia-based NRI husband, saying a man's failure to cohabitate or interact freely with his newly married wife does not amount to cruelty or dowry harassment.

A two-judge bench said the case records didn't bear out the wife's allegations under the penal code's sections 498A (harassment by husband or other family members) and 405 (punishment for criminal breach of trust).

"The proceedings initiated against the appellants are liable to be quashed," Justices Arun Misra and M.M. Shantanagoudar said in a judgment earlier this week.

"The record also does not disclose anywhere that the husband of the complainant acted with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security. The ingredients of criminal breach of trust are also not forthcoming from the records as against the appellants. The allegations contained in the complaint and the chargesheet do not satisfy the definition of criminal breach of trust," the court said.

"In view of the blurred allegations, and as we find that the complainant is only citing the incidents of unhappiness with her husband, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the prosecution against the appellants," the bench added.

The bench upheld an appeal filed by Varala Bharath Kumar, an engineer who works in Australia.

Kumar's wife had filed the criminal case against him and his parents in Hyderabad under the two IPC sections immediately after their marriage in 2015. She had alleged her family had spent around Rs 35 lakh on their marriage, solemnised in Hyderabad, and on gold presents for the couple. Kumar then left for Australia within a month, she said.

The woman - it's not known if the couple have separated judicially - alleged that before his departure and during her stay at her matrimonial home for 20 days, Kumar did not come close to her and was not even willing to talk to her freely despite her best efforts.

She said Kumar had never behaved as a dutiful husband: he had avoided her whenever she approached him, kept his distance even at night time and chosen not to cohabitate with her.

After he left for Australia, the complainant alleged, Kumar's family members did not bother to speak to her properly when she stayed with them briefly.

The trial court in Hyderabad and the state's high court refused to quash the criminal case. Kumar's family then moved the top court.

In its judgment the top court said this was a case where there was a "total absence of allegations for the offences punishable under Section 498A and Section 406 (which lays down the punishment for the offence under Section 405)".

"In the matter on hand, the allegations made in the first information report as well as the material collected during the investigation, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute the offences punishable under Section(s) 498A and 406 of the IPC against the accused/appellants," the court said.

"The entire story narrated by the complainant does not attract the aforementioned provisions, as there has not been any dowry demand (by) the appellants or harassment to the second respondent (wife).

"We are conscious of the fact that Section 498A was added to the code (IPC) with a view to punish the husband or any of his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. Keeping the aforementioned object in mind, we have dealt with the matter. We do not find any allegation of subjecting the complainant to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC.

"The records at hand could not disclose any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the complainant. So also, there is nothing on record to show that there was a demand of dowry by the appellants or any of their relatives, either prior to the marriage, during the marriage or after the marriage," Justice Shantanagoudar, writing the judgment, said.