AI generated image used for representational purposeNEW DELHI: The Patna high court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of pressuring his wife to sign divorce and child custody papers, holding that such conduct does not amount to cruelty under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The court held that asking a spouse to agree to the terms of separation or custody does not fall within the definition of cruelty.Why did the husband approach the high court?According to the court order, the husband sought quashing of an FIR lodged by his wife at Gandhi Maidan police station in Patna. The FIR accused him of offences under Sections 85 (cruelty), 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS.The wife alleged that during a meeting at Hotel Maurya in Patna in January 2026, the husband pressured her to sign papers relating to divorce and the custody of their two daughters. She also accused him of assault and criminal intimidation."It is alleged that from soon after the marriage, the informant (wife) was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the petitioner and the other four relatives named by her and that the conduct of the petitioner grew more violent after the birth of the two daughters," the court order reads.The husband argued that the allegations stemmed from a matrimonial dispute after the couple had already entered into a mediated settlement in September 2025 and withdrawn earlier cases against each other. He further argued that the FIR arose out of disagreements over the terms of separation and custody.Why did the high court quash the case?Justice Praveen Kumar noted that, by the wife's own case, the earlier matrimonial disputes had been settled in September 2025 and relations remained cordial until the end of that year. Therefore, the court said only the alleged incident at Hotel Maurya in January 2026 required consideration."What is alleged, therefore, is pressure to accept the terms of separation. That is a matrimonial negotiation, and an acrimonious one. It is not, without a good deal more, cruelty of the kind Section 85 speaks of... A demand that she sign a divorce petition and a custody arrangement answers neither clause. It is not a demand for property. It is not a demand for valuable security," the court noted.The high court also found that the allegation of wrongful confinement was not supported by the wife's own statement. It noted that while she later claimed she had been held captive, her earliest version stated that she had locked herself inside the room out of fear until her father arrived with the police."Her case in the fardbayan is that after the threat, she shut herself in the room out of fear and that on the following day her father came with the police and she left. She does not say that the petitioner confined her. She says the opposite," the court further noted.The court observed that the medical records placed before it also did not support the allegation of cruelty under Section 85 of the BNS. It said the documents did not show conduct likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury, as required under the law."Whatever else this material may establish, it does not describe conduct of a nature likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health," the court added.Holding that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not make out the offences alleged in the FIR, the high court quashed the criminal case against the husband. However, it clarified that the order would not affect the pending matrimonial, guardianship and domestic violence proceedings between the parties, which would be decided independently on their own merits.