Misuse of Section 498A IPC
Misuse of Section 498A IPC
Misuse of Section 498A IPC
The aim of this research is to acquaint the reader with the Misuse of 498A IPC.
I would like to extend my gratitude and sincere thanks towards the cooperating
faculty of Law in Army Institute of Law without whom this project would be
of much difficulty. Our Professors have pushed us towards achieving newer
levels of understanding and grasping all that we can in the field of Law.
I would also like to thank the supporting piers and not forgetting to mention
my parents who have supported me throughout my life and without whom
understanding the ways of making a good, no, a better project, a thought that
might seem very obscure to few individuals.
Introduction:
The infamous Sec 498A IPC was inserted by way of amendment in the year 1983 to curb the
Matrimonial Cruelty meted out to women in Indian households. By the same Amendment Act,
modification was effected in the Indian Evidence Act also, by insertion of Sec 113A to raise a
presumption regarding abetment of suicide by a married woman. The main agenda for the
insertion of the Sec 498A IPC was to protect a woman who is being harassed by her husband
or relatives of husband.
— 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
(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
(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.
The expression “cruelty” has been defined in wide terms so as to include inflicting physical or
mental harm to the body or health of the woman and indulging in acts of harassment with a
view to coerce her or her relations to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security. The sanction for harassment of dowry fall within the ambit of the latter part of the
explanation. Wherefore, creating a situation driving the woman to commit suicide is also one
The offence committed under Sec 498A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence.
Cognizance of the offence, however, is possible only when the information as to the
aggrieved by the offence, or by any person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption or if
there is no such relative, by any public servant belonging to such class or category as may be
It being a non-bailable offence, the bail can only be granted under certain grounds as envisaged
Furthermore, Sec 498A IPC is a non-compoundable offence i.e. the Court cannot records the
compromise between the parties and drop charges against the accused.
The aforesaid section, subject matter of the present research, was introduced with the avowed
object to combat the menace of dowry deaths and harassment to a woman at the hands of her
husband or his relatives. Nevertheless, the provision should not be used as a device to achieve
oblique motives.1
Ingredients:
For the commission of an offence under Sec 498A, following necessary ingredient are required
to be satisfied:
1
Onkar Nath Mishra v. State (NCT of DelhI), (2008) 2 SCC 561
c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or
The term “hubans” covers a person who enters into a marital relationship and under the colour
of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty in
the manner provided under Sec 498A, whatever by the legitimacy of the marriage itself for the
limited purpose of Sec 498A. the absence of a definition of “husband” to specifically include
such person who contract marriages ostensibly and cohabit with such woman, in the purported
exercise of their role and status as “husband” is no ground to exclude them from the purview
In order to be covered under Section 498-A IPC one has to be a “relative” of the husband by
A girlfriend or a concubine being not connected by blood or marriage is not a “relative” of the
The two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has held that even a second wife can file a
“… The legislature has taken care of children born from invalid marriages. Section 16 of the
Marriage Act deals with legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages. Can it be said
2
U. Suvetha v. State, (2009) 6 SCC 757
3
Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam, (2004) 3 SCC 199
4
Vijeta Gajra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 11 SCC 618
5
U. Suvetha v. State, (2009) 6 SCC 757
that the legislature which was conscious of the social stigma attached to children of void and
voidable marriages closed its eyes to the plight of a woman who unknowingly or unconscious
of the legal consequences entered into the marital relationship? If such restricted meaning is
However, the Hon’ble Courts had a different opinion while dealing with cruelty to partners in
a live-in relationship.
The Kerala High Court, after considering various decisions of the Supreme Court has held that
for an offence under Section 498-A to be committed, the parties must have undergone some
sort of ceremonies with the object of getting married. In that case, the parties did not perform
any ceremony and just started living together. It was held that a woman in a live-in relationship
Interpretation of “cruelty”;
Every harassment does not amount to “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498-A. For the
purpose of Section 498-A, harassment simpliciter is not “cruelty” and it is only when
harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to
her to meet an unlawful demand for property, etc. that it amounts to “cruelty” punishable under
Cruelty can either be mental or physical. It is difficult to straitjacket the term cruelty by means
of a definition because cruelty is a relative term. What constitutes cruelty for one person may
6
Supra.
7
Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala, (2017) SCC Online Ker 12064
8
State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582
9
G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 152
The concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual, also depending upon
The Sec 498A being a non-compoundable offence, the court cannot acquit the accused by the
However, if there is a genuine compromise between the husband and wife, the criminal
complaints arising out of the matrimonial discord can be quashed by the High Court. The same
can be done by the High Court under Sec 482 CrPC, where even if the offences alleged therein
are non-compoundable, the reason being, such offences being personal in nature and do not
have repercussions on the society unlike heinous offences like murder, rape, etc.
In case an accused is convicted and sentenced under Sec 498A, even then if the Court feels that
the parties have a real desire to bury the hatchet, in the interest of justice, it can reduce the
With the rise in the rate of education, financial security and modernization, the more
independent and radical feminists, no doubt, the said feminism being a pathway for a better
world, but the said Sec 498A has been used time and again, as a weapon in her hands than a
shield.
Today, the section is among the most debatable sections regarding women, as it is claimed that
it is more often misused than used. The Former Union Minister for Women and Child
10
Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa, (2002) 2 SCC 619
11
Manohar Singh v. State of MP, (2014) 13 SCC 75
Development, stated about 70% of women in India to be victims of domestic violence, there
was a huge commotion in media, several foundations like that Save India Family Foundation
came forward and reported that while giving the states she deliberately avoided the actual
convictions in dowry death trials after false cases were dismissed in the courts.
The Hon’ble Court held specifically that there are misuse and exploitation of the provisions to
such an extent that it was hitting on the basis that is the foundation of marriage itself and which
ultimately proved to be not a good sign for the health of society for the public at large. 12
However, more recent cases have risen to address the burning issue of misuse of Sec 498A:
Facts: The wife alleged that dowry was demanded from her and that she was driven
applied for anticipatory bail which failed. Therefore, by SLP the husband
Decision: The Court observed that the fact that Section 498A, IPC is a cognizable and
non-bailable offence, it is more often than not is used as a weapon rather than
shield by disgruntled wives. It results in harassing the husband and his relatives
by getting them arrested under this Section and it is more disturbing to see
case. Thus, the Court laid down certain guidelines which the police officer must
follow while arresting under Section 498A, IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 and that such arrest must be based on a reasonable
12
Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand and Ors., (2003) DMC 328
Magistrates must be careful enough not to authorise detention casually and
mechanically.
Facts: The wife alleged physical and mental cruelty at the hands of the husband and
accused him under Section 498A, IPC. The husband, however, denied all the
charges.
Decision: The Court held that “Cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC is to be
established in the context of Section 498-A IPC as it may be different from other
man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether
proximity of time of lodging the complaint. The Court further held that petty
A IPC.
Facts: Similar to previous cases, the facts of this case are that the wife was killed by
setting her up on fire by her husband and her relatives. The sister-in-law and
Court.
Decision: The Court brought under notice the facts that the appellants in the case did not
even reside at the place of mishap. There was no evidence to prove their charge
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Court acquitted them and held that the
Facts: In the present case, the husband, along with other relatives, was accused for
causing cruelty to the wife in lieu of demand for dowry. However, the other
implication. Thus, in most of the cases the relatives of the husband are also
being dragged into Courts in cases of Section 498A. However, it is not necessary
that they have been party to the offence. Thus, a question with respect to the
need for directions to prevent misuse of Section 498A, IPC was raised in the
appeal.
Decision: The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive directions to prevent the misuse
willing.
done by the District and Session Judge of the district who is also ex-officio
to submit the report to the authority who referred to such complaint. The
The work of the committee includes looking into every complaint under
received.
Investigating Officer
connected offences.
duration (not less than one week) as may be considered appropriate. The
training may be completed within four months from the date of delivery of
the judgment.
Settlement
In cases where a settlement is reached, the District and the Sessions Judge
to dispose of the proceedings. Such disposal also includes the closing of the
District and Sessions Judge may also nominate any other senior Judicial
Bail Matters
Cases where a bail application is filed with at least one clear day’s notice to
the Public Prosecutor or the complainant, the same may be decided on the
same day.
Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial
be protected.
Further, in dealing with bail matters, certain things such as individual roles,
the prima facie truth of the allegations, the requirement of further arrest or
Clubbing of cases
nominated by the District Judge to club all connected cases between the
Personal appearance
Further, the trial court ought to grant exemption from the personal
offences involving tangible physical injuries or death. The Court also said that
the National Legal Services Authority may submit a report after a trial of 6
months of such arrangement and latest by March 31, 2018, for any change in the
Facts: The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioners
contended that it is not untrue that there are a number of women suffering from
violence at the hands of husband and his relatives and that the accusation that
Section 498A is being misused is not supported from any concrete date on such
misuse. It was further argued that the social purpose behind Section 498-A IPC
is being lost as the rigour of the said provision has been diluted and the offence
Decision: After referring to the directions, the Court concluded that the direction with
respect to Family Welfare Committees and their duties are not in accordance
with any provision of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The offence of cruelty
impossible to arrest before the report of such committee has made this
ineffective. Thus the directions given in Rajesh Sharma case has been modified
that it if a settlement is arrived at, the parties can approach the High Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court,
keeping in view the law laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[14],
Conclusion:
It is important to note that the domestic violence and abuse by the spouses and family members
are very complex behaviours and social organization of courts, legal cultures and the police
systematically tend to devalue several domestic violence cases. Therefore the perspective of
the state and the people needs to change from potential “misuse” of the concerned laws of
domestic violence to that of implementing it for their real purpose and thus, to recognise that
any such type of violence is a crime and to protect women who have shown the courage and