{"id":351897,"date":"2025-06-30T14:00:50","date_gmt":"2025-06-30T08:30:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=351897"},"modified":"2025-06-30T15:05:47","modified_gmt":"2025-06-30T09:35:47","slug":"498-aipc-ipc498-a-supremecourtjudgments-supremecourt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/30\/498-aipc-ipc498-a-supremecourtjudgments-supremecourt\/","title":{"rendered":"Section 498-A IPC: A Double-Edged Sword — Protecting Dignity or Enabling Misuse? Supreme Court Rulings explored"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

A critical provision addressing cruelty within marriages, Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> seeks to protect women from cruelty by the husband and his family, but considering the current trends, it raised important questions about its application and potential misuse.<\/p>\n

In a recent Supreme Court judgment on Section 498-A misuse, the Court said, \u201ca mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud.\u201d<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a> However, in another judgment, the Court restricted the leniency against mother-in-law in treating the daughter-in-law with cruelty.<\/p>\n

But how do Courts decide when to be lenient and when to be strict in such cases?<\/p>\n

Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> lays the provision against a husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. It provides that \u201cWhoever, 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.<\/span>\u201d<\/p>\n

It further explains \u201ccruelty\u201d as:<\/p>\n

\u201c(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or<\/span><\/p>\n

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.<\/span>\u201d<\/p>\n

Although the provision is clear enough to make one understand what constitutes cruelty under Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a>, it sometimes becomes confusing when the same is applied to specific facts of the case. In fact, the percentage of false case is higher than the genuine cases as per the conviction rate (Click here<\/a> for NCRB data), which reflects its misuse. This is where the Supreme Court judgments bring clarity to confusing state of affairs.<\/p>\n

This article is a curation of the important judgments by the Supreme Court on Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a><\/p>\n

Specific allegations against husband\u2019s relatives and Section 498-A Misuse<\/h2>\n

In the recent case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana<\/span> v. State of Telangana<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682<\/a>, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It noted that the allegations lacked specific instances of cruelty or dowry demands, and merely naming family members without concrete evidence amounts to abuse of legal process<\/span>. The Court said that \u201ca mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud\u201d.<\/span> The Court emphasised that such misuse of Section 498A to harass the husband and his family must be curbed, and held that the High Court erred in not quashing the FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Court further said that the \u201cinclusion of Section 498-A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife.<\/span>\u201d<\/span> Read detailed case here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In Archin Gupta<\/span> v. State of Haryana<\/span> (2025) 3 SCC 756<\/a>, the Supreme Court held that Section 498A IPC should not be applied mechanically.<\/span> The Court observed that minor marital issues were often exaggerated by the wife\u2019s family which lead to misuse of police machinery to harass the husband.<\/span> The Court stated that, \u201cmany times, the parents including the close relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a mole. Instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members, brings about complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that comes in the mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police, as if the Police is the panacea of all evil\u201d.<\/span> The Court further emphasised that such actions amounted to the abuse of the legal process and that the High Court should have quashed the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Court also directed the legislature to amend the provisions to address the pragmatic realities. Read the detailed analysis here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In the case of Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar<\/span> 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162<\/a>, the Court held that husband\u2019s relatives cannot be forced to undergo trial in absence of specific allegations of dowry demand.<\/span> It was further that \u201ca criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.\u201d<\/span> Read the detailed analysis here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In another compelling case, Charan Singh<\/span> v. State of Uttarakhand<\/span> 2023 SCC OnLine SC 454<\/a>, dating back to 1995, wherein a woman died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home, the Division Bench of Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal*, JJ., held that mere death of the deceased being unnatural in the matrimonial home within seven years of marriage will not be sufficient to convict the accused under Section 304-B and 498-A of the IPC<\/span> if the cruelty or harassment has not been proved to be soon before the death. Read detailed analysis here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In Sushila v. State of U.P.<\/span> 2025 SCC OnLine SC 804<\/a>, the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against the appellants and observed that the complaint was lodged under Section 498A of the IPC after three years of an ex parte divorce, based on a single incident occurring post-divorce<\/span>, lacked specific, credible allegations against the appellants relatives and focused mainly on the husband\u2019s conduct. In the absence of any specific allegations against the relatives of husband, the Court held that proceeding against them would amount to a vexatious trial.<\/p>\n

While quashing criminal proceedings against the accused in Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana<\/span> 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263<\/a>, the Supreme Court remarked, \u201cIn the context of matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and as such in the complaints filed alleging harassment or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other members of the family who do not come to the rescue of the complainant or remain mute spectators to any alleged incident of harassment, which in our view cannot by itself constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts attributed to them. Further, when tempers run high and relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily mean that such domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality.\u201d<\/span> Thus, implicating all such relatives without making specific allegations and attributing offending acts to them and proceeding against them without prima facie<\/span> evidence that they were complicit and had actively collaborated with the perpetrators of domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the process of law.<\/p>\n

However, coming to the aid of a daughter-in-law in the case of Meera v. State<\/span> 2022 SCC OnLine SC 31<\/a> relating to mother-in-law treating daughter-in-law with cruelty<\/span>, the Supreme Court held that \u201cwhen an offence has been committed by a woman by meting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-law, it becomes a more serious offence.\u201d<\/span><\/span> It further added that woman meting out cruelty to another woman deserves no leniency. Mother-in-law must protect daughter-in-law, not harass her. Read the detailed analysis here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Section 498-A IPC Evidence<\/h2>\n

Since cases of cruelty under Section 498A are related to a matrimonial home, most of the witnesses are related to each other by birth or marriage. Hence, they are the interested parties whose statements may or may not be genuine enough to be relied upon by the judges. In Surendran v. State of Kerala<\/span> 2022 SCC OnLine SC 621<\/a>, the Supreme Court reiterated the well settled principle of law that \u201cthe evidence tendered by the related or interested witness cannot be discarded on that ground alone. However, as a rule of prudence, the Court may scrutinize the evidence of such related or interested witness more carefully.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

In Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2989<\/a>, the Supreme Court considered an appeal challenging the Bombay High Court\u2019s decision, which had upheld the accused\u2019s conviction under Section 498A for cruelty and had commuted the sentence to the period already undergone. The Division Bench of C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ., examined the facts and legal aspects of the case, ultimately setting aside the High Court\u2019s judgment and acquitting the accused under Section 498A. The Court found that there was no iota of evidence against the accused to hold that he was guilty. Furthermore, just because the accused\u2019s wife was found guilty under Section 498A, it cannot be a ground to hold the accused guilty in the absence of any specific material on record. Read detailed analysis here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

While quashing criminal proceedings against the accused in Geddam(supra)<\/span>, the Supreme Court remarked, \u201cCriminalising domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible materials to support the same may have disastrous consequences for the institution of family, which is built on the premise of love, affection, cordiality and mutual trust.\u201d<\/span> These domestic relationships are guided by deeply ingrained social values and cultural expectations and often viewed as sacred. Thus, to preserve families, the Courts should be circumspect and judicious, and should allow invocation of criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials which clearly constitute criminal offences. The Court further remarked that domestic violence and harassment does not normally happen in the spur of the moment, such acrimonious relationship would develop only in course of time. Thus, in such cases, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against the perpetrators in specific terms to rope such perpetrators in the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them. Thus, mere general allegation of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such perpetrators would not suffice.<\/span><\/p>\n

In another recent case titled Ghanshyam Soni v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span> 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1301<\/a>, the Supreme Court found the allegations of the wife, a police officer, vague and unsupported by any concrete evidence or medical reports. The FIR contained only broad accusations with no specifics regarding time, place, or events that could legally establish cruelty under Section 498A. The Court emphasised that mere omnibus allegations against multiple relatives, including five sisters-in-law and even a tailor, without substantiation, cannot justify prosecution. The Court that though being a police officer does not exclude the possibility of victimization it was unfortunate that an officer of the State had initiated criminal machinery in such a manner. Read the detailed analysis here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Abetment of suicide after Cruelty against women<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

In Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda<\/span> v. State of Gujarat<\/span> (2025) 2 SCC 116<\/a>, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal discharging the accused of charges under Section 306 opining that- mere harassment and such issues between the wife and her husband along with the in-laws did not appear to create a scenario where the deceased-wife was left with no option other than to end her life. The Court held that the essential ingredient of mens rea<\/span> to instigate the suicide of the deceased persons was absent. Read detailed analysis here<\/a><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court , in its 2022 Judgment on 498-A discussed the nexus between offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State<\/span>, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387<\/a>. Therein, the Supreme Court reiterated that \u201cCourt must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

In another significant legal development in Paranagouda<\/span> v. State of Karnataka<\/span>, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1369, an appeal was filed against the judgment passed by Karnataka High Court affirming sentence convicting the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3<\/a> and 4<\/a> of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961<\/a> (\u2018DP Act\u2019). The Division Bench of S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ. modified the impugned order by acquitting the accused for dowry death but convicting for offence punishable under Section 306 for abetment to suicide, in the absence of any charge framed, but accused persons having knowledge of the acts being tried for. Read detailed analysis here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In another significant judgment of Digambar<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836<\/a> the Court stated that \u201cCruelty is not enough to constitute an offense under S. 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a>, it must be done to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself.\u201d<\/span> The Court stated that the proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive of pressurising the son\/ husband to consent to the divorce according to the terms of the complainant-wife, hence, the Court set aside the High Court\u2019s decision. Read the detailed analysis here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Also read:<\/span> Cruelty to Women [S. 498-A IPC and allied sections]<\/a><\/p>\n

Section 498-A of IPC and dying declaration as evidence<\/h2>\n

In Rajaram v. State of M.P.<\/span>, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1733<\/a>, the victim\u2019s husband came up with an appeal against conviction under Section 498A. According to the facts, the victim was brought to the hospital in a burnt condition and lost her life thereafter. Two dying declarations of the victim were recorded by the authorities. The first dying declaration elaborated upon the acts of burning her with kerosene oil, wherein, there was no mention of the appellant, i.e., her husband. The second dying declaration did mention the previous acts of cruelty, which included the husband along with other family members. The High Court discredited the second dying declaration, which was the only piece of evidence against the husband. Hence, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence for cruelty under Section 498-A.<\/p>\n

In Paranagouda<\/span> (supra), the Court perused the dying declaration of the deceased who self-immolated herself, on account of her inability to tolerate the torture meted out by the accused persons. The Court expressed, \u201cThe physical disability suffered by her on account of the burn injuries sustained would not disentitle her to make statement, if said statement had been made consciously knowing the consequences thereof and such statement or declaration cannot be brushed aside only on the ground of burn injuries (in the instant case 70% to 80%) having been sustained by her.\u201d<\/span> The Court stated that the dying declaration could not be found faulty due to doctor\u2019s conscious statement about the deceased\u2019s mental capacity, while placing reliance on Kamalavva v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 13 SCC 614<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Also read:<\/span> Dowry Death under IPC: Supreme Court Judgment on death within 7 years of marriage<\/a> Should Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> be amended<\/span> or struck down due to misuse?<\/p>\n

In Janshruti v. Union of India<\/span> 2025 SCC OnLine SC 909<\/a>, the Supreme Court was approached seeking directions for the formulation of gender-neutral guidelines and legislation governing the filing of domestic violence and harassment complaints. The petitioners also sought a declaration regarding the constitutionality of Section 498A. The Supreme Court rejected the petition, stating that the provision was introduced to address the widespread and deeply entrenched exploitation of women through traditional practices, such as the dowry. Thereafter, the legislature had continued to retain\u00a0this provision over the decades, presumably in recognition of the persistent and deep-rooted nature of the underlying social malaise. The Court remarked that while it was true that instances of misuse had emerged over time, they were rarely sufficient to warrant striking down a statutory provision or diluting its effect. The Court reiterated that the mere possibility or occasional misuse of a legal provision does not render it constitutionally infirm, either procedurally or substantively.<\/span><\/p>\n

Regarding the aspect of constitutionality, the Court held that while certain individuals may face hardship due to the misuse of the provision, it was equally important to look beyond these instances and recognize that the provision serves a constitutionally sound objective. It is aimed at protecting a vulnerable section of society that often requires legal support and institutional safeguards to shield them from systemic abuse and exploitation. The Court remarked, \u201cthe harsh truth is that dowry continues to persist as a deeply entrenched social evil, prevalent across vast sections of the country. A significant majority of such cases go unreported, with countless women compelled to endure injustice in silence. This underscores the continuing need for legal provisions such as Section 498A, which serve as vital instruments of protection and redressal for those most vulnerable.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

FAQs on Section 498A IPC<\/h2>\n

Q – What is the new amendment in Section 498A?<\/p>\n

A- There is no Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> amendment available till date. There have been petitions and proposals for amending the provisions related to making the offence compoundable, gender neutral, etc. It may be noted that any change brought to the existing legal practice on cruelty against married woman is through the latest supreme court guidelines on 498-A through various case laws.<\/p>\n

Q- Is Section 498A a continuing offence?<\/p>\n

A- As the term suggests in consonance with Section 472 of the CrPC, a continuing offence is one which repeats and the right to take legal action in such cases begins every time such offence is repeated. As per Section 468 of the CrPC, the time limit for a complaint for an offence under Section 498A of the IPC is 3 years. In the case of Rupali Devi v. State of U.P.<\/span>, (2019) 5 SCC 384<\/span><\/a>, the Supreme Court explained the scope of a continuing offence in a detailed manner and affirmed Section 498-A to be a continuous offence for deciding the jurisdiction of Courts.<\/p>\n

Q- What is the average time for a Section 498A case?<\/p>\n

A- Neither a latest Supreme Court judgment on Section 498A nor any other case law provides for a fixed timeline within which, a case for cruelty against women may be wrapped. However, the legal proceedings may be concluded within 1-2 years if the allegations are baseless and a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is accepted. It may stretch to 5-7 years for the trial to wrap up.<\/p>\n

Q- Can the police reject a Section 498A case?<\/p>\n

A- Yes, whenever a criminal complaint is filed with the Police, it is their duty to register a First Information Report\/FIR based on the ingredients of the offence to be duly satisfied. Hence, if Section 498A ingredients are missing as per the complainant\u2019s story, the Police may refuse to register such a case.<\/p>\n

Q- Is there any Section 498-A judgment in favour of the husband?<\/p>\n

A- When Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> was introduced through the 1983 criminal amendment, it was said to be a weapon in the hands of women to humiliate their husbands. There was a need to protect the husbands and their relatives against the misuse of Section 498A. One such Supreme Court judgment was Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar<\/span> (2014) 8 SCC 273<\/a>, wherein, directed the police authorities not to automatically arrest the accused persons in a Section 498A case or other cognizable offence, but satisfy themselves on necessity for arrest following the parameters under Section 41 CrPC. This case brought some relief for husbands dealing with false cruelty cases ruining marriages. The same was followed in a latest Supreme Court judgment- Satender Kumar Antil<\/span> v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Q. Is there any case regarding cruelty against husband?<\/p>\n

The Court in the case of Rajive Ratori v. UOI<\/span> 2024 SCCOnLineSC3217<\/a>, observed that since privacy is a fundamental right, it includes spousal privacy and the Court remarked that \u201cSelf-pleasure is not a forbidden fruit; its indulgence shall not lead to a precipitous fall from the Eden garden of marriage. After marriage, a woman becomes a spouse but she continues to retain her individuality. Her fundamental identity as an individual, as a woman, is not subsumed by her spousal status\u201d. The Court noted that the wife, in her testimony, denied all the allegations made by the husband. If the husband\u2019s allegations were true, it seemed improbable that they would have remained together for close to two years. The husband did not provide any evidence to show that the wife failed to perform household chores.<\/p>\n

FAQ Schema<\/h2>\n