S.498A IPC : How Supreme Court Raised Concerns About Misuse Of Anti-Dowry & Cruelty Laws Over Years

The recent tragic death of 34-yr old techie Atul Subhash, who is reported to have died by suicide due to marital discord with his wife and ensuing litigations, has sparked a debate around Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.

Unfortunately though, the issue of misuse of women-centric laws - Section 498A IPC in particular - is not new. It has continued to surface over the years, with even the Supreme Court of India raising concerns about Section 498A IPC being exploited by disgruntled wives as a legal tool against their husbands and their family members, for arm-twisting and ensuring compliance with unreasonable demands.

In this article, we will look at what Section 498A IPC stipulates and what the Supreme Court has said about its possible misuse in the recent past.

Introduction

Section 498A IPC was brought on the statute book in 1983 with the object of arresting dowry deaths and cruelty meted out by a husband or his relatives against a wife. It is characterized as a cognizable, non-compoundable and non-bailable offense, and reads thus:

"Whoever, 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.

Explanation - For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"-

(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

(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."

In 2005, the constitutional validity of Section 498A IPC was challenged (Ref: Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India), but the same was upheld by the Supreme Court. The petitioner in this case brought to the notice of the Court that the provision was being rampantly invoked by wives with oblique motive. Acknowledging the same, the Court said that it may become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. However, till that happens, it would be upon courts to deal with the situation within existing framework.

In this judgment, rendered about two decades ago, the Court cautioned that misuse of Section 498A IPC could unleash a "new legal terrorism". It further stressed that the provision was intended to be used as a shield for women against dowry harassment and not assassins' weapon. Insofar it was alleged that prosecuting authorities often approach such cases with a pre-conceived notion that the accused are guilty, the Court underlined that authorities must endeavor to ensure that innocent persons are not made to suffer on account of baseless allegations.

"Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment....the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound", the Court said.

Safeguards against unwarranted arrest (Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar)

The period between 2007 and 2013 saw a rise in the number of cases registered under Section 498A IPC but a fall in the conviction rates. As per reports, the number of cases pending trial at the beginning of 2007 was around 2.67 lakh and this number increased to 4.66 lakh at the beginning of 2013 - a rise of almost 75% in 7 years.

As the apprehensions surrounding misuse of Section 498A IPC picked pace, in 2014, the Supreme Court finally delivered a landmark judgment in the case of a husband who approached it seeking protection from arrest pursuant to a Section 498A IPC complaint by the wife. Essentially, the Court issued guidelines which inter-alia restrained police officers from automatically arresting the accused in dowry related cases.

In order to prevent unnecessary arrest and mechanical detention, the Court directed all State governments to instruct their police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498A IPC was registered, but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest. Further, it was held that all police officers shall be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii), which they shall fill and furnish alongwith reasons and material for arrest, while producing the accused before a Magistrate for further detention.

The Magistrate, on his part, was mandated to record a satisfaction after perusing the police officer's report and before authorizing detention. The guidelines, though issued in a Section 498A IPC case, were held to apply to all offenses where maximum punishment extended upto 7 years (with or without fine).

In this case, the Supreme Court also vociferously stated that Section 498A IPC was being rampantly abused. It noted that in a number of cases, bedridden grandparents of husbands and sisters living abroad for decades were being arrested. While the rate of chargesheeting in such cases was over 90%, the conviction rate was only 15% - the lowest across all heads. The Court highlighted that the simplest way for wives to harass their husbands was to make a complaint under Section 498A IPC and get them and their family members arrested. Accordingly, considering the effect on liberty and freedom of citizens, it was cautioned that arrest shall be made with great care and caution.

In 2015, the National Commission for Women sought a review of the Arnesh Kumar judgment, raising the following contentions: (i) an accused could secure bail from the trial court in case of wrongful arrest, (ii) the law laid down in the judgment was liable to be misused by police, and (iii) the judgment went beyond the statutory mandate and gave a very wide arm to police with respect to arrest of a person. However, the Supreme Court declined the same. 

Setting up of Family Welfare Committees and checks on arrest (Rajesh Sharma v. State of UP)

After the Arnesh Kumar judgment, in 2017, the Supreme Court again expressed concern over disgruntled wives misusing the anti-dowry law against their husbands and in-laws.

It issued a fresh set of directions to prevent the misuse of Section 498A IPC. These included setting up of district-wise Family Welfare Committees comprising para legal volunteers, social workers, retired persons, wives of working officers, etc., which would look into every complaint received under Section 498A IPC. The Committee could interact with the parties, and thereafter, submit its report (within 1 month) to the authority that referred the case to it. Till such report was received by the authority, no arrest could be made.

Further, this judgment opened avenues for settlement to be reached in marital disputes before the District Sessions Judge (or any other nominated senior Judicial Officer). The proceedings, including criminal cases, arising out of marital discord could be disposed of by the said Judge/officer, if settlement was arrived at.

Notably, in the context of bail applications filed in marital disputes, these directions stated that individual roles, prima facie truth of allegations, requirement of further arrest/custody and interest of justice ought to be weighed.

In 2018, however, a three-judge bench of the Court withdrew the direction that complaints under Section 498A IPC should be scrutinized by Family Welfare Committees before further legal action by police (Ref: Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar v. Union of India). Though it was acknowledged that there was misuse of the provision, leading to social unrest, the Court said that it could not fill legislative gaps. Other directions issued in Rajesh Sharma were also modified by this judgment.

Need to ensure that distant relatives of husband are not over-implicated

More often than not, family members of the husband are also implicated in dowry and cruelty cases, without any specific allegation. Taking note of instances of over-implication and exaggerated versions by wives, the Supreme Court has off and on stressed on a need for authorities to be circumspect in matrimonial disputes, to prevent undue suffering of family members on the basis of vague allegations. Some of these cases are illustrated below.

♦ Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of U.P.

In 2012, the Supreme Court held that in a matrimonial dispute, mere casual reference to the names of family members, without allegation of active involvement, would not justify taking cognizance against them. The Court emphasized that the tendency of over implication ie to draw all members of the household into the domestic quarrel shall not be overlooked - especially when it happens soon after the wedding.

In this case, unmarried sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant-wife approached the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the case against them. Going through the material, the Court observed that the FIR did not disclose specific allegation against the two, except casual reference of their names. Instead of remitting back the matter to the High Court and protracting the ordeal of the petitioners, the Supreme Court itself quashed the criminal proceedings.

♦ Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode v. State of Maharashtra

In October, 2024, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man (brother-in-law of deceased wife) under Sections 498A/34 IPC, noting that there were no specific allegation and/or evidence against him.

The appellant was booked along with the deceased's husband and sister-in-law in a cruelty case for allegedly torturing and harassing the deceased in relation to dowry demand. He assailed the High Court's upholding of his conviction, contending that there was no credible evidence proving his guilt because the alleged demand of dowry was made in January 2010 however his marriage with the deceased's sister-in-law was solemnized later in October 2010.

Finding "no scintilla of evidence" against him, the Court said that the appellant could not be held guilty merely on account of his being the husband of the deceased's sister-in-law. It also expressed dismay over the tendency to over-implicate persons and the presentation of exaggerated versions in Section 498A IPC cases. "the courts have to be careful to identify instances of over implication and to avert the suffering of ignominy and inexpiable consequences, by such persons", the Court said.

♦ Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab

In November, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a word of caution for courts to ensure that distant relatives of a husband are not unnecessarily implicated in criminal cases filed at the behest of the wife under Section 498A IPC.

In this case, the complainant (wife's father) lodged an FIR soon after the husband filed for divorce. Apart from the husband and his parents, the FIR implicated the husband's cousin brother and his wife, on allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty. When the couple sought quashing of the case, the High Court refused their prayer noting that the chargesheet had already been filed.

In this backdrop, the matter reached the Supreme Court. Criticizing its approach, the top Court held that the High Court was duty-bound to examine if the implication of the distant relatives of the husband was an "over implication" and an "exaggerated version". In the facts of the case at hand, it was noted that the petitioners (the cousin brother and his wife) were residing in a city different from the place of residence of the complainant's daughter.

It was further observed that though the word "relative" for the purposes of Section 498A IPC has not been defined, it should be understood in the common sense of the term. That is, it can be taken to include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew, niece, grandson or granddaughter of any individual or the spouse of any person. If allegations are raised against a person not related by blood, marriage or adoption, courts must examine if they are exaggerated. "In such circumstances...the Court concerned owes an irrecusable duty to see whether such implication is over implication and/or whether the allegations against such a person is an exaggerated version", the Court said.

Supreme Court's request to Parliament to amend anti-dowry law

In light of rampant invoking of Section 498A IPC by wives, the Supreme Court has on occasions called on the Parliament to take note of ground realities and amend the laws. Two cases where such request was made are as follows:

♦ Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

In 2010, the Supreme Court flagged concern about exaggerated versions of incidents in Section 498A IPC complaints and invited the attention of the legislature to bring changes to the provision while taking into consideration the pragmatic realities and public opinion.

"we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases", the Court said, directing the Registry to send a copy of its judgment to the Law Commission and the Union Law Secretary, for placing before the Minister of Law & Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.

In this case, it was also remarked that as majority complaints are filed either on the advice or with the concurrence of advocates, they must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents are not reflected in criminal complaints.

♦ Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana

Before provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came into effect on July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court made a request to the Parliament to consider making changes to Sections 85 and 86 thereof (akin to Section 498A IPC), considering the pragmatic realities and the misuse of the provision by disgruntled wives. For context, the new provisions in BNS are verbatim reproduction of Section 498A IPC, except that the Explanation to Section 498A IPC (defining "cruelty") is now a separate provision, i.e., Section 86 of the BNS.

In this case, the husband had approached the Supreme Court against High Court's refusal to quash an FIR under Sections 323/406/498A/506 IPC registered against him on the complaint of his wife. The FIR was preceded by the filing of a divorce case by the husband against his wife alleging cruelty.

In this backdrop, the Court observed that after reading the FIR/complaint in its entirety, if it is found that the criminal proceedings were initiated with an oblique purpose just to harass the accused, then it is incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings.

Quashing the case at hand, the Court also cautioned that police shall not apply Section 498A IPC mechanically in all complaints filed by wives. It opined that even if the FIR/chargesheet discloses a cognizable offense, courts must read between the lines to see if there is an oblique motive on the part of the complainant-wife and take a pragmatic view.

"The Police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends. In all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty."

Growing tendency of misuse of Section 498A IPC (Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana)

Recently, the Supreme Court again acknowledged that there is a growing tendency of misuse of Section 498A IPC by wives, who often implicate husbands and their family members to negotiate settlements and unleash personal vendettas. Quashing the case at hand, the Court observed that the wife had misused the provision as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage moved by the husband. As such, a caution was issued (once again) against prosecution of husbands and their family members in the absence of a clear prima facie case.

Voicing similar concerns, in the aftermath of Atul Subhash's death, a public interest litigation (PIL) has also been lately filed before the Supreme Court, which seeks directions to ensure that a husband and his family members are not harassed in cases filed under domestic violence and dowry laws. Petitioner-Advocate Vishal Tiwari also seeks constitution of an expert committee of retired judges, eminent lawyers and legal jurists to review and reform existing dowry and domestic violence laws and suggest measures to prevent their misuse.

Concluding Remarks

Besides the Supreme Court, High Courts in the country have repeatedly voiced their concerns about the misuse of anti-dowry and domestic harassment laws. But the fact remains that once a wife gets a cruelty case registered, the husband and his family members are obligated to move the jurisdictional High Court for quashing. Settlement terms have to be negotiated, in which the wife tends to have an upper-hand, even if there are cross-complaints. The sheer number of marital disputes that are settled in High Courts under Section 482 CrPC, after negotiation of the terms between the parties, speak volumes in this regard.

Since the legislature has maintained a deafening silence on lacunas in the law, the question really is - what safeguards can courts bring into practice to undo the weaponization of Section 498A IPC (now replaced by Sections 85 and 86 BNS), without jeopardizing the interests of genuine victims.

Primarily, it needs to be realized that Arnesh Kumar guidelines act as a shield only against unwarranted arrests, but the scales are heavily tilted in favor of wives on other aspects of the matter, due to the inherent nature of anti-cruelty and harassment laws. This transcends, for instance, into judges and authorities being more liberal and accommodating towards them. The biases, even if not personal, are reflected in the matters of child custody, place of trial, appearance before police officers, mediation rounds, etc.

With oblique motives involved, the disparities between the manner in which the two parties face the ordeal take a heavy mental toll on the husband's side. In fact, Atul Subhash's case is one extreme example of what countless husbands and their families go through. It highlights the day-to-day struggle involved in matrimonial cases, ranging from stigmatization, lack of negotiation power, lack of access to one's own child, having to attend trial in far-off places, etc.

As judgments rendered hitherto have acknowledged ignominy that matrimonial cases entail and the fact that the same cannot be wiped off even in case of acquittals, it is high time the Supreme Court lays down guidelines to address the misuse of anti-cruelty and harassment laws, by dealing inter-alia with accountability of wives in cases of false prosecution, prevention of abuse of position by police officers and advocates, sensitization of mediators and judges, state-assisted counselling for couples and family members, etc.

(The author is a Supreme Court Reporter with LiveLaw. She can be reached at debby@livelaw.in. Views are personal.)