Delhi HC Rejects Argument That Wife's Hospitalization Is Essential For Invoking S.498A, Says 'Narrow Interpretation' Will Silence Many Victims

The Delhi High Court has rejected a husband's argument that hospitalization of the wife is essential for establishing cruelty and harassment to her and for invoking Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

“Allowing such an argument to prevail – that hospitalization is a prerequisite for invoking Section 498A – would erode the very purpose of the provision. Section 498A of IPC was enacted to address the plight of women who suffer various forms of cruelty, not just physical abuse that results in visible injuries,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

The Court said that if such ideology is allowed to grow, it will close the doors of justice for countless women who endure abuse behind closed doors, leaving them trapped in a distressing and oppressive environment.

“Such a narrow interpretation would render Section 498A ineffective, silencing many victims and perpetuating cycles of abuse. Therefore, this Court finds the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant to be devoid of merit and fundamentally flawed, as it disregards the broader scope and protective intent of the law,” the Court said.

It denied anticipatory bail to the husband in the FIR registered last year by the wife for the offences under Section 498A, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The marriage was solemnised between the parties as per Muslim customs. The allegations against the husband was that he not only subjected the wife to severe harassment but also retained her jewellery and other personal belongings, thereby depriving her of her rightful property.

Dismissing the anticipatory bail plea, the Court noted that the fact of husband remarrying without seeking consent from the wife showed a disregard for his personal law and the sanctity of marriage.

“His justification for remarriage, citing his mother's wishes and health, and his plea during arguments that he was ready to take her back to the matrimonial home where his second wife now resides with him and his family and portraying that the refusal of the complainant to now stay with him as he is remarried and is living with his second wife, does not reflect that she deserted him and did not want to join his company,” the Court said.

It took exception to husband's argument that it was not a case where the wife was hospitalised due to cruelty or harassment committed upon her.

“This argument itself is not only unmerited but crosses the threshold of having a mentality where to make out a case of Section 498A serious, the woman should have injuries and medical treatment record of a hospital. This contention implies that the woman must be physically beaten and battered to the extent of requiring hospitalisation and only then it will make out a case of cruelty to be covered under Section 498A of IPC,” the Court said.

It added that such a perspective fails to recognise the multifaceted nature of cruelty, which includes mental, emotional, and financial abuse, all of which are equally detrimental and fall within the ambit of Section 498A.

Justice Sharma concluded that while granting anticipatory bail in cases of Section 498A of IPC, Courts have to be conscious of many cases filed which may indicate misuse of the provision.

The Court said that the facts of each case and the conduct of the accused in individual cases is the core question that a Court of law has to answer while granting or refusing bail.

Title: BILAL ANSARI v. STATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 55

Click here to read order