Section 498A IPC- Important Supreme Court & High Court Judgments of 2023
Supreme Court Judgments- 498A Indian Penal Code, 1860 Conviction U/S 498A IPC Not Sustainable When Marriage Is Found To Be Null & Void Case Title: P Sivakumar vs State | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 116 Coram: Justices B R Gavai and Vikram Nath The Supreme Court reiterated that the conviction under Section 498-A IPC would not be sustainable when the marriage was found to be null...
Supreme Court Judgments- 498A Indian Penal Code, 1860
Conviction U/S 498A IPC Not Sustainable When Marriage Is Found To Be Null & Void
Case Title: P Sivakumar vs State | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 116
Coram: Justices B R Gavai and Vikram Nath
The Supreme Court reiterated that the conviction under Section 498-A IPC would not be sustainable when the marriage was found to be null and void. Reliance was placed upon Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) 15 SCC 369. (Para 7)
Case Title: Md Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 583
Coram: Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar
The Supreme Court of India reiterated the guidelines laid down by the top court for arrest under Section 498A of the IPC and for other offences punishable by a maximum jail term of seven years in its 2014 Arnesh Kumar judgment. Apart from this, it also directed the high courts and police chiefs of all states to issue notifications and circulars containing these guidelines within eight weeks. (Para 12)
For convenience, in Arnesh Kumar, the Court, inter alia, restrained the police from automatically arresting the accused in dowry-related cases. For an arrest to be justified, the court said that there needed to be adequate material to show the reason for the arrest as well as explain why it was necessary for the purposes of the investigation. The court also clarified that these guidelines would apply equally to other provisions in the Indian Penal Code under which an accused could be sentenced to imprisonment for seven years or less.
Case Title: Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose, Sanjay Kumar and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated at the instance of a wife against her in-laws under Section 498A of the IPC after noting that the allegations were "mostly general and omnibus in nature."
The Court observed that the allegations are "far-fetched" and "improbable." It also noted that the complaint was filed only in 2013, soon after the husband filed a petition seeking divorce.
"Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin," the Court observed before referring to various precedents which held that criminal case against in-laws can be quashed if they are vague and omnibus in nature. (Para 20-22)
Case title: Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 996
Coram: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Top Court reiterated that the place where the wife lives and seeks shelter after leaving her husband's home due to cruelty will have jurisdiction to entertain complaints under Section 498-A, depending on the factual situation. Reliance was placed upon Rupali Devi v. State of U.P., (2019) 5 SCC 384. Therein, it was clarified that adverse effects on the mental health of the wife, even when residing in her parental home due to acts committed in the matrimonial home, amounted to cruelty under Section 498A. (Para 48 and 49)
Case title: Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 915
Coram: Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar
The Supreme Court held that Section 498A has a broader scope and that the conviction of the accused under this section should be upheld, irrespective of the acquittal under Section 304B. The Court based this decision on the acceptance of the dying declaration made by the deceased, which disclosed her inability to endure the torture she had endured, leading to her act of suicide. The Court found this sufficient to convict the accused under Section 498A. However, the conviction under Section 304B (dowry death) could not be sustained due to the lack of a direct connection between the dowry demand and the death. (Para 17-21)
Case Title: Mahalakshmi vs. The State of Karnataka., 2023 LiveLaw(SC) 1041
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N Bhatti
The Supreme Court, while quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC observed that one occurrence, unless serious, with no clear evidence of involvement in the complainant's life, is not sufficient to implicate a person under this provision. The Court also observed that the assertions made against the Sister and Cousins of the husband (appellants) in the charge sheet are very vague and general. (Page 4)
S.498A IPC - Bail Condition That Husband Should Resume Conjugal Life With Wife Can't Be Imposed
Case Title: Kunal Choudhary Vs. The State of Jharkhand., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1045
Coram: Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma
The Supreme Court observed that while granting anticipatory bail to the accused husband under Section 498A of the IPC, a condition that the husband shall take his wife to his house and maintain and honor her cannot be imposed. (Para 5)
High Court Judgments- 498A Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 498A IPC | Mental Cruelty Possible Even If In-Laws Reside Separately: Bombay High Court
Case Title: SK and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 32
Coram: Justices Sunil B. Shukre and M. W. Chandwani
The Bombay High Court observed that mental cruelty is an abstract concept and can be committed even if relatives reside separately. Many times, certain taunts are made against another person, but it all depends upon the manner in which the person takes those remarks or responds to them., the Court said.
It further noted that the allegations and witness statements indicate that the applicants (relatives) gathered at the complainant's marital residence on some occasion or the other. Besides this, they also talked personally or on the phone with the complainant. During these encounters, the complaint alleged that relatives subjected her to humiliation, harassment, and cruelty. Thus, the Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings instituted against distant relatives of the husband under Section 498A.
Case Title: Danish Chauhan Vs DGP J&K., 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 36
Coram: Justice Sanjay Dhar
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court opined that merely because a wife has initiated proceedings against her husband under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), no bar can be construed against lodging a first information report (FIR) for cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC. (Para 7)
Case Title: Vk & Anr Versus State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 441
Coram: Justice Vikas Mahajan
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR against a husband, who was accused of several offences under IPC inlcuding 498A, by his wife after the couple settled their differences. Besides dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce under mutual consent, the wife also paid her husband an amount of Rs.12 Lakh towards all his claims. (Para 8)
Case Title: Rameshbhai Danjibhai Solanki & 7 Other(s) Versus State Of Gujarat & 1 Other(s)., 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 136
Coram: Justice J.C. Doshi
The Gujarat High Court observed that the Legislature, while using the expression “the husband” or “relatives of the husband” in section 498A of the IPC, used the word “woman” and not “wife”. Therefore, allegations of the offence u/s 498A of the IPC even can be maintained at the instance of the divorcee wife, provided that she alleges the incident of harassment and cruelty which could have been meted out while marriage was subsisting. However, she cannot file a complaint alleging offense u/s 498A of the IPC, making an allegation of an incident that could have taken place subsequent to the divorce. (Para 14)
Case Title: Rajan v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh., Misc. Criminal Case No. 35596 Of 2018
Coram: Justice Vivek Rusia
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while taking a noteworthy stance on the misuse of Section 498-A of the IPC, observed that this section is increasingly being misused to settle matrimonial disputes.
Sometimes, the FIR wife lodges the FIR immediately after receipt of the summons from the Family courts. Nowadays, there is a package of 5 cases against the husband and family members in family court and the criminal court under I.P.C., the Hindu Marriage Act, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005., the Court observed. (Para 10 and 11)
Case title - Ram Kripal Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand and others along with connected revision petitions, 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 43
Coram: Justice Ambuj Nath
The Jharkhand High Court ruled that not providing proper medical aid to one's wife to enforce the demand of dowry would come within the definition of cruelty as enunciated under Section 498A of the IPC. (Page 5-6)
Case Title: Mrs. Pista Kanwar v The Inspector of Police and Others., Crl.A.No.211 of 2022
Coram: Justice R.Hemalatha
The Madras High Court has observed that the husband's illicit relationship with his elder brother's wife would amount to cruelty to the wife within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC. The Court added that if the husband is immoral and his activities are outside his house, the effect on the wife is lesser as it can happen clandestinely, but in the instant case, it has happened inside the home and under the pretext of 'motherly affection' and she has seen it. The word cruelty in Section 498(A) can manifest itself into multiple offensive forms, including indulgence in an 'extramarital relationship.', the Court explained. (Para 12)
Case title: Narayanan v State of Kerala., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 569
Coram: Justice Sophy Thomas
The Kerala High Court acquitted a man and his family who were convicted under Section 498A IPC for cruelty against a deceased woman on the finding that the parties were living together as husband and wife, based on a marriage agreement, and their marriage was not solemnized. Even if that document is registered, it cannot be a substitute for a legally valid marriage., the Court held.
"But, when there was no solemnisation of marriage at all, and only live in relationship on the basis of a marriage agreement, then the woman cannot seek shelter under Section 498A of IPC, saying that they were holding out to the society as man and wife by their long cohabitation." (Para 16)
Section 498-A IPC Being Misused As A Weapon By Disgruntled Wives: Jharkhand High Court
Case title - Rakesh Rajput and another vs. The State of Jharkhand and another., 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 78
Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
The Jharkhand High Court observed that there has been a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years, and it appears that in many cases, the object of Section 498-A of the IPC is being misused, and the said Section is used as a weapon rather than a shield by disgruntled wives.
The Court, amongst other decisions, referred to the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to highlight that certain guidelines have been issued on how to arrest a person against whom matrimonial disputes are there. (Para 8)