CHAPTER-4 JUDICIAL APPROCAH TO SECTION 498A

Definition of Cruelty

There is no exact definition of cruelty, nor can one be created. Cruelty can take many
different forms, and there is no way to categorize them into any one waterproof box. Cruelty
can be mild or severe. It could be expressed with gestures, words, or just quiet. The following
section of Russell v. Russell1 as the foundation for the definition of cruelty. Russell "conduct
of such a character as to have given rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger, or as to
have caused danger to life, limb, or health, bodily or mental.

Until recently, the two factors—the defaulting spouse's behavior and how it affected the
complaining spouse—were crucial requirements for matrimonial relief based on cruelty. But
in the landmark case in Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy2, the Supreme Court went one step
farther and added a new dimension to cruelty in matrimonial law. In this case, the Supreme
Court noted that, in addition to the cases mentioned above (where one spouse engages in
cruel behavior and it negatively affects the other spouse), there may be situations where the
behavior in question is sufficiently bad and illegal in and of itself. In such cases, the impact
or negative effect on the other spouse need not be investigated or taken into consideration.
The woman filed a case alleging and proving that her husband had requested dowry. The
Supreme Court ruled that this was illegal and consequently amounted to cruelty, even though
the wife may not have suffered any harm as a result of the demand.

As a result, it is evident that there is no exact definition of cruelty because human behavior
varies widely and hence has no boundaries about what behavior can be considered cruel. In
any event, new forms of cruelty could emerge based on how people behave and if they can
accept the behavior in question. Lord Denning noted that "the categories of cruelty are not
closed" in the Sheldon v. Sheldon3 case.

According to the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce in England, "we consider that
it is... not proper to have a detailed definition but to allow the concept of cruelty to remain
open to such adjustments as it is desirable to make through the media of judicial decisions so

1
(1897) A.C. 393.
2
AIR 1988 S.C. 121.
3
(1966) 2 All. E.R. 257.
as to accord with the changing social conditions" was stated in their 1956 report. The Indian
Law Commission has voiced the same opinion.

Classification of Cruelty

Cruelty is classified into two categories in contemporary Hindu law:

Acts of Physical Cruelty:

Historically, physical abuse committed by one spouse against another that results in a bodily
limb or health injury, or that reasonably causes fear of such harm, has been classified as
cruelty. This is actually the definition of cruelty in its original form; the degree to which
physical acts of aggression qualify as cruelty varies from situation to situation and is
influenced by the sensitivities and vulnerabilities of the parties involved.

Acts of Non–Physical Violence

The phenomena of violence against women also includes a variety of non-physical acts of
violence, such as harassment, insulting behavior, ending marital relations, and a husband's
refusal to give treatment, food, clothing, or housing. The husband, on the other hand,
typically offers a variety of excuses for their actions, such as their persistent quarreling,
unfounded claims about their extramarital affair, and the wives' unwillingness to help out
around the house. It was decided as early as 1924 that physical cruelty was not always
necessary for cruelty to qualify as legal. A pattern of behavior that, if continued, would
jeopardize the wife's health serves as adequate grounds to deny the husband a ruling restoring
the conjugal rights4. In the case of Braja Kishore v. Krishn5 too, it was held that the cruelty is
not necessarily restricted to physical violence but may extend to behaviour which may cause
mental pain or injury to mind as well.

It is a settled rule of law that the expression 'cruelty' covers not only the physical or violent
acts of spouses but also the mental or psychological acts of other partners which creates
apprehension in the mind of the complaining partner that it will be harmful or injurious to
live with the other party. This is true even though the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 does not
define cruelty6.

4
Kondal Royal v. Ranganayaki Ammal AIR 1924 Mad 49, . 55.
5
AIR 1989 Cal 327.
6
Lalita Devi v. Radha Mohan AIR 1976 Raj
Following the 1976 amendment, the cruelty's "apprehension" component was eliminated.
Therefore, actions that could result in "pain or injury to the mind as well and so render the
continuance in the matrimonial home as an agonizing ordeal7" may also be considered cruel,
as stated in the modified section of the Act. The spouse has been accused of torturing the
other partner mentally by doing the following8:

A spouse's willful and unreasonable meddling in the other's life is one form of cruelty, just as
controlling or harsh behavior, abnormal sexual behavior, repulsive claims of infidelity or
unchastity, and occasionally even deliberate cruelty or incessant pestering can all be
considered cruel in the right circumstances. The general rule appears to be that any behavior
on the part of one spouse that harms the other spouse's mental state and, as a result, impairs
their health could be considered cruelty9. Cruelty is the enjoyment of or indifference to the
suffering of others. It implies actions that are savage or cruel, or that cause needless suffering
to others. Therefore, a spouse may be considered cruel if his actions harm his wife's mental
state and subsequently harm her health.

Steps for Making Sec. 498 A Compoundable

Previous recommendations for changes to the statute came from the Indian statute
Commission and state high courts. As stated in the letter dated September 1, 2009, the Home
Secretary of the Government of India asked the Law Commission of India to consider making
recommendations for potential amendments to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or
other measures to prevent the alleged misuse of the said provision, taking into consideration
the observations made by the Supreme Court and the High Courts as well as the
representations received from various quarters. Following that, the Supreme Court noted in
the 2010 case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand that the Legislature should give the entire
clause a thorough examination. It is well known that many complaints contain inflated
accounts of the incident. A great deal of examples likewise exhibit the trend toward over-
implication.10

The Supreme Court had termed the instances of abuse of Section 498A as Legal Terrorism11,
and Parliament had pondered over the issue time and again. But nothing had happened till

7
Siddagaugia v. Lakshama AIR 1968 Mys. 115 at 116.
8
Ibid.
9
Rjender Singh Joon v. Tara Wati AIR 1980 Del. 213 at 214.
10
Sushil Kumar v. Union of India, 2005(6)SCC281
11
The Law Commission of India’s Report No. 243 on Section 498 A IPC dated August 2012
now. The broad implication of the recent ruling is endorsement of the assertion that the law is
being grossly misused by many married women and their families who have an axe to grind,
often financial.

According to the Supreme Court, women are increasingly utilizing the anti-dowry statute to
harass their in-laws. The court also stopped police from automatically detaining the husband
and his relatives upon filing a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. This
ruling came in the recent case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar12. The state governments
were instructed to instruct police "not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498A
of IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity of arrest under the
parameters (check list) provided under Section 41 of criminal procedure code," citing the
extremely low conviction rate in such cases.

A bench of Justices C K Prasad and P C Ghose expressed frustration over the widespread
abuse of Section 498A and stated that if police arrested an accused person, the magistrate
should consider the preliminary evidence in light of Section 41 checklist before granting
additional detention. "The magistrate, while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse
the report furnished by the police officer in terms of Section 41 and only after recording its
satisfaction, the magistrate will authorize detention," the court stated.

It also said that this check-list for arrest and detention would apply to all offences, which are
punished with a prison term less than 7 years. Punishment under Section 498A is a maximum
of three years but it had been made a cognizable and non-bailable offence, which made grant
of bail to the accused a rarity in courts.

But the court singled out the dowry harassment cases as the most abused and misused
provision, though the legislature had enacted it with the laudable object to prevent harassment
of women in matrimonial homes.

In his bench judgment, Justice Prasad noted that dowry harassment cases in India had
skyrocketed in the previous few years. Section 498A has a dubious place of honor among the
statutes that are employed as weapons rather than shields by irate wives because it is a
cognizable and non-bailable offence. Using this provision to get the husband and his
familyjailed is the easiest method to torment them. Many times, spouses' ailing grandparents

12
Special Leave Petition (Cri) No.9127 of 2013
and moms, as well as their sisters who have been overseas for decades, are taken into
custody.

The Court noted that in cases under Section 498A, the rate of charge-sheeting is as high as
93.6%, while the lowest conviction rate of all heads is only 15%. Up to 3,72,706 cases are
awaiting trial; according to current estimates, approximately 3,17,000 of these cases will end
in an acquittal. The bench stated that even after sixty years of independence, police were still
seen "as a tool of harassment, oppression, and surely not considered a friend of public,"
characterizing arrest as an embarrassing experience aside from restricting freedom.

The Orissa High Court made the following observation regarding the purpose of Indian Penal
Code section 498A: "The purpose of this section was to address the threat of dowry deaths."
It shows how anxious legislators were to provide protection to wives who were viewed as the
weaker partners. Matrimonial drudgery and irreversible fractures in marriages might
sometimes drive women to take their own lives. They have no choice but to take this drastic
action because their lives are pure torment. Conscious of the fact that mental cruelty was not
penalized, it was practiced in lieu of physical brutality. To close the legal loophole, the
section was added. Many have demanded that Sec. 498A of the Penal Code be made a
compoundable offense due to its misuse13.

The recommendation to make Section 498 A a compoundable offense was strongly backed by
the Justice Malimath Committee's Report on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System. "A less
tolerant and impulsive woman may lodge a FIR even on a trivial act," the Committee noted.
As a result, the husband and his family might be arrested right away, and their jobs might be
suspended or eliminated. Because the claimed offense is not subject to bail, innocent people
are kept in detention. If the husband is unable to make payments, a maintenance claim could
be made, adding gasoline to the flames. Now, the woman might have a change of heart and
decide to forgive and forget. Additionally, the husband could acknowledge his errors and
decide to start anew. The woman might want to look for forgiveness. However, given the
legal barriers, this might not be feasible. She is unable to make apologies by withdrawing the
complaint because the offense is not punishable by law. The door is closed on getting back to
a family life. Consequently, she is left at the mercy of her birth family. Therefore, neither the
husband nor the wife benefit from this provision. Because the offense is not punishable by
law and cannot be compounded, an innocent person faces humiliation and suffering.

13
Baby v. State, (1984) Cr. LJ 1684 15 (2001) 6 SCC 407.
Reconciliations are hampered by cruel laws that prohibit bail and compounding for some
crimes. Therefore, in order to allow the spouses to have a second chance at reconciliation,
this offense must be made (a) bailable and (b) compoundable.

The Supreme Court ruled in Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar14 that the term "cruelty" in general
English refers to a behavior that causes pain and anguish to another person. The legislative
aim behind Section 498–A is sufficiently evident to suggest that the section would apply if
the husband or any of his relatives engaged in behavior that could be considered unpleasant
or upsetting toward the wife.

Section 498A of IPC and dying declaration as evidence

In the case of Rajaram v. State of M.P., 2022 SC 1733, the victim’s husband appealed against
his conviction under IPC Section 498A. The incident involved the victim being admitted to
the hospital with severe burns, ultimately resulting in her demise. Two dying declarations
were obtained from the victim by the authorities. The first declaration detailed the
circumstances of her burning with kerosene oil, with no mention of the appellant, her
husband. In contrast, the second declaration included accounts of past acts of cruelty,
implicating the husband along with other family members. However, the High Court
dismissed the credibility of the second dying declaration, which was the sole evidence against
the husband. Consequently, the Court overturned the conviction and sentence for cruelty
under Section 498A.

IN KALIYAPERUMAL V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

The Court clarified that while cruelty may be a common aspect in offenses under both
Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC, they are not mutually inclusive. It was established that
although there may be a connection between the offenses under Section 304B, pertaining to
dowry death, and those under Section 498A, relating to cruelty towards women, each section
delineates distinct offenses.

Section 304B, concerning dowry deaths, does not provide its own definition of cruelty but
incorporates the concept of cruelty or harassment outlined in Section 498A. In contrast,
Section 498A specifically addresses acts of cruelty towards women, irrespective of whether
they result in death. While cruelty is the primary offense under Section 498A, Section 304B

14
Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Indian Divorcer Act 1869; The Parsi
Marriage and Divorce (Amendment) Act 1988; The Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act 1939.
deals specifically with dowry deaths, requiring that such deaths occur within seven years of
marriage and are related to the giving or receiving of dowry. However, Section 498A does not
impose a time frame for the commission of cruelty.

Therefore, while there may be overlap in the elements of cruelty in both sections, each
section serves a distinct purpose within the legal framework, with Section 304B focusing on
dowry-related deaths and Section 498A addressing acts of cruelty towards women in general.

Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam (2009) 13 SCC 330, the wife alleged that she had been
subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband, invoking Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code. The husband refuted all allegations against him.

During the proceedings, the Court referenced the case of S. Hanumantha Rao v. S. Ramani to
understand the concept of mental cruelty. Additionally, various other cases such as Mohd.
Hoshan v. State of A.P., Raj Rani v. State, and Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India were
consulted to comprehend the scope of cruelty under the law.

The Court concluded that to establish “cruelty” under Section 498-A IPC, it must be
evaluated within the context of this specific statutory provision, which may differ from
interpretations under other laws. It emphasized the need to assess the man’s conduct,
considering the gravity of his actions and whether they are likely to drive the woman to
contemplate suicide, among other factors. Moreover, it was determined that cruelty must be
demonstrated to have occurred continuously or at least in close proximity to the lodging of
the complaint. The Court also clarified that minor disagreements or trivial arguments do not
constitute “cruelty” under Section 498-A IPC.