Section 498A IPC & 85 BNS: A Review of Supreme Court Judgments Favouring the Husband

Introduction

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), occupies a unique and contentious space in India’s criminal jurisprudence. Introduced in 1983 through the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, it was hailed as a landmark legislative measure—a crucial “shield” designed to protect married women from the pervasive scourge of dowry-related violence and matrimonial cruelty.1 The provision criminalized cruelty inflicted by a husband or his relatives, providing a much-needed legal recourse for women trapped in abusive domestic environments. However, over the four decades of its existence, the narrative surrounding Section 498A has evolved, with growing concerns about its misuse. The Supreme Court of India and various High Courts have repeatedly observed that this protective provision is often wielded as a “weapon” rather than a shield, used to settle personal scores, wreak vengeance, and entangle entire families in protracted criminal litigation.4

The recent overhaul of India’s criminal laws and the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which is set to replace the IPC, has brought this provision back into sharp focus. Section 498A has been retained almost verbatim as Section 85 and Section 86 of the BNS.6 This legislative continuity has been met with judicial apprehension, with the Supreme Court expressing concern that the provision has been replicated without incorporating adequate safeguards to prevent its misuse, despite decades of judicial commentary and pleas for reform.8 This dichotomy—between its laudable objective and its potential for abuse—has led to a rich and complex body of case law. The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has been instrumental in interpreting the contours of Section 498A, striving to strike a delicate balance between protecting the rights of genuine victims and safeguarding the liberty of the accused from malicious prosecution.

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal framework surrounding Section 498A IPC and its successor, Section 85 BNS. It critically examines the legislative history, the constituent elements of the offense, and the evolution of judicial interpretation. The core of this report is a curated compendium of over 30 seminal judgments from the Supreme Court of India that have granted relief to husbands and their relatives. By thematically analyzing these precedents, this report seeks to distill the key legal principles and judicial safeguards that have been carved out to prevent the abuse of this well-intentioned, yet often misused, law.

⚖️ Discuss Your Case with Experienced Advocates of Kolkata High Court & Supreme Court 🇮🇳

📞 Call Us Today: 📲 +91 890 222 4444 / 📲 +91 9044 04 9044

Kolkata Criminal Lawyer Consultation

Section 1: The Legislative and Interpretive Landscape of Marital Cruelty

1.1. Genesis and Legislative Intent: The ‘Why’ Behind the Law

The introduction of Section 498A into the Indian Penal Code was not a standalone event but a legislative response to a pressing social crisis. The late 1970s and early 1980s were marked by a disturbing increase in incidents of violence against married women, often culminating in “dowry deaths”—a grim euphemism for the murder or abetment of suicide of young brides for their failure to meet incessant dowry demands.3 Women’s rights movements across the country highlighted the inadequacy of existing legal provisions to tackle the unique nature of violence occurring within the supposed sanctity of the matrimonial home.3

The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983, explicitly articulated the legislative anxiety and intent. It noted that the “increase in number of dowry deaths is a matter of serious concern” and that cases of cruelty by the husband and his relatives which culminate in suicide or murder were just a fraction of the instances of such cruelty.5 The legislature recognized that the existing provisions of the IPC were insufficient to deal with the specific phenomenon of matrimonial cruelty linked to dowry. The objective was clear: to amend the IPC, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to “deal effectively not only with cases of dowry deaths but also cases of cruelty to married women by the husband, in-laws and relatives”.13

To create a comprehensive deterrent framework, the amendment was threefold. First, it introduced Chapter XXA into the IPC, containing Section 498A, which made cruelty by a husband or his relatives a substantive penal offense punishable with imprisonment up to three years and a fine.1 Second, to aid in the prosecution of such offenses, Section 113A was inserted into the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This provision introduced a rebuttable presumption of abetment of suicide by the husband or his relatives if a woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty.4 This legislative package was further strengthened in 1986 with the introduction of Section 304B in the IPC, which defined the specific offense of “dowry death,” and Section 113B in the Evidence Act, which created a stronger presumption (

shall presume) of guilt in such cases.11 Together, these amendments were intended to create a powerful legal bulwark against domestic abuse and dowry-related violence.

1.2. Deconstructing the Offence: Textual Analysis of Section 498A

The statutory language of Section 498A IPC is precise and forms the bedrock of its interpretation. A thorough analysis of its components is essential to understand its scope and application.

The provision reads:

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—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 purpose 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. 15

From this text, three essential ingredients for the offense emerge:

1. The victim must be a married woman.
2. She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment.
3. The perpetrator must be the husband or a relative of the husband.10

Judicial Interpretation of ‘Cruelty’

The Explanation to Section 498A provides a specific and exhaustive definition of ‘cruelty’ for the purposes of criminal law, which is distinct from the broader understanding of cruelty in matrimonial civil law.18 The Supreme Court has consistently held that the two clauses of the Explanation are disjunctive and must be read separately.19 This means that cruelty can be established under either clause (a) or clause (b).

• Clause (a): Grave Cruelty (Physical or Mental): This clause deals with “wilful conduct” of a grave nature. It is not every act of cruelty that falls under this limb. The conduct must be of such a character that it is likely to either (i) drive the woman to commit suicide or (ii) cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health (which can be either mental or physical).18 The judiciary has been careful to distinguish this high threshold of cruelty from the “ordinary wear and tear of married life”.21 Petty quarrels, occasional disagreements, or isolated incidents of anger, while unfortunate, do not typically meet the standard required by clause (a).5 The conduct must be ‘wilful’ and demonstrate a degree of severity that threatens the woman’s existence or well-being in a profound way.17
• Clause (b): Dowry-Related Harassment: This clause specifically targets harassment linked to an “unlawful demand for any property or valuable security”.20 This is the limb most commonly associated with dowry harassment. The harassment must be with the specific view to coerce the woman or her relatives to meet such a demand, or it must be on account of their failure to meet it.23 While the term “dowry” is not explicitly used, the phrase “unlawful demand for any property or valuable security” is broad enough to encompass it.3 In a significant clarification, the Supreme Court has ruled that a dowry demand is not an essential ingredient to establish cruelty under clause (a). The two clauses are independent, meaning a case of grave physical or mental cruelty can be made out even if there are no allegations of dowry demands.19

Judicial Interpretation of ‘Relative’

The term “relative” is not defined in the Indian Penal Code. The judiciary has, therefore, interpreted it based on its common parlance and legal context. The landmark judgment in this regard is U. Suvetha v. State (2009), where the Supreme Court held that the term ‘relative’ must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood.26 It principally includes persons related by

blood, marriage, or adoption.17 Consequently, the Court ruled that a ‘girlfriend’ or a ‘concubine’ of the husband, who is not connected to him by blood, marriage, or adoption, cannot be prosecuted as a ‘relative’ under Section 498A.17 This interpretation prevents the provision from being expanded to include individuals outside the legally recognized familial structure, thereby curbing its potential misuse against third parties in a matrimonial dispute.

A fascinating jurisprudential development has been the establishment of a causal link between the outcome of criminal proceedings under Section 498A and civil remedies for divorce. The definition of ‘cruelty’ under Section 498A is stringent, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt of conduct likely to cause suicide, grave harm, or harassment for dowry.15 In contrast, ‘cruelty’ as a ground for divorce under civil statutes like the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is interpreted more broadly to include various forms of conduct causing mental anguish, and the standard of proof is a preponderance of probabilities.18 This distinction has led to a high rate of acquittals in Section 498A cases, as the prosecution often fails to meet the rigorous criminal standard.9 The Supreme Court, in a series of innovative judgments like

Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani and K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, has established that the very act of a wife filing a false or unsubstantiated Section 498A complaint, which results in the husband’s acquittal after a grueling trial, itself constitutes “mental cruelty” against the husband.28 This allows the husband to successfully seek a divorce on this ground. This judicial feedback loop serves as a powerful check on the misuse of the criminal provision, as a false complaint can now lead directly to the dissolution of the marriage—a consequence the complainant may not have intended.

1.3. The New Code: Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which will replace the IPC from July 1, 2024, the provisions of Section 498A have been carried forward with minimal structural change.6 The new code bifurcates the old provision into two separate sections:

• Section 85 of BNS, 2023: This section contains the main punitive clause. It is a verbatim reproduction of the primary paragraph of Section 498A IPC.6 It states:”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.” 6
• Section 86 of BNS, 2023: This section now separately houses the definition of ‘cruelty’. It is a verbatim reproduction of the ‘Explanation’ part of Section 498A IPC.8

This restructuring does not alter the substantive law in any way. The essential ingredients, the definition of cruelty, and the scope of the offense remain identical to those under the IPC.6 Similarly, the procedural characteristics of the offense—being

cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable—are retained under the new legal regime.2

This legislative continuity is significant. Despite four decades of judicial commentary, Law Commission reports, and widespread debate about the provision’s misuse, the legislature chose not to introduce any substantive amendments or safeguards while transposing it into the BNS. The Supreme Court has taken note of this, expressing its concern that an opportunity to address the well-documented issues of misuse was missed.8 This decision to maintain the status quo means that the entire body of jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court around Section 498A, including the guidelines and interpretive limits discussed in this report, will continue to be directly applicable and essential for the interpretation and application of Sections 85 and 86 of the BNS.

Section 2: Judicial Scrutiny and the Evolution of Safeguards

The history of Section 498A’s application is a story of judicial balancing. While its protective intent has never been questioned, the courts have been compelled to evolve a framework of safeguards to counteract its misuse. This evolution reflects a pragmatic response to the ground realities of matrimonial litigation in India.

2.1. Acknowledging the Misuse: From “Shield” to “Weapon”

For years after its enactment, Section 498A was viewed primarily through the lens of its protective objective. However, by the early 2000s, a different narrative began to emerge in courtrooms. The Supreme Court started taking judicial notice of a growing trend where the provision was being used as a tool of harassment. The turning point was the landmark case of Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005).5 While upholding the constitutional validity of Section 498A, the Court made a powerful observation that would be quoted in countless subsequent judgments. It stated that while the object of the provision is to prevent the dowry menace, many complaints are not bona fide and are filed with “oblique motive”.1 The Court famously warned that the provision should not be used by “unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment,” and termed its misuse as a form of “legal terrorism”.5

This judicial acknowledgment was not based on mere anecdotal evidence. Courts began to point towards alarmingly low conviction rates in Section 498A cases as a statistical indicator of potential false implication and misuse.9 The Supreme Court noted that disgruntled wives were increasingly using the provision as a “weapon rather than a shield,” often roping in the husband’s entire family, including aged parents, married sisters, and even distant relatives, with the primary aim of settling personal scores or gaining leverage in divorce or maintenance proceedings.4 This recognition set the stage for the judiciary to move from mere observation to active intervention.

2.2. Preventing Arbitrary Arrests: The Arnesh Kumar Mandate

The most significant judicial intervention to curb the misuse of Section 498A came in the form of the procedural guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014).2 The Court was confronted with the harsh reality that the cognizable and non-bailable nature of the offense had led to a culture of automatic arrests. Upon the filing of a complaint, police would often arrest the husband and his family members without any preliminary inquiry or application of mind, leading to immense humiliation and curtailment of personal liberty.2

The Arnesh Kumar judgment was a direct response to this systemic problem. The Court’s intervention can be seen as a classic example of judicial activism filling a legislative void. For years, the judiciary and law commissions had urged the legislature to amend the law—for instance, by making it bailable or compoundable—to reduce its potential for harassment.2 When legislative reform was not forthcoming, the Supreme Court, to protect the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, stepped in to regulate the executive power of arrest. It did not alter the substantive offense but created a binding procedural framework by meticulously interpreting Section 41 of the CrPC, which deals with the power of police to arrest without a warrant.

The Court issued a set of mandatory directions for all offenses punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years, with Section 498A being the primary catalyst for the ruling. The key directives are:

1. No Automatic Arrest: Police officers are explicitly instructed not to arrest an accused automatically upon the registration of a case under Section 498A.37
2. Justification for Arrest: An arrest can only be made after the police officer is satisfied about the necessity for arrest based on the specific parameters laid down in Section 41(1) of the CrPC. This includes preventing the accused from committing further offenses, ensuring proper investigation, or preventing tampering with evidence.14
3. Mandatory Checklist: Police officers must fill out a checklist containing the sub-clauses of Section 41(1)(b)(ii) and furnish the reasons and materials that necessitated the arrest. This checklist must be forwarded to the Magistrate when the accused is produced for detention.5
4. Magisterial Scrutiny: The Magistrate, before authorizing detention, must peruse the report and the checklist furnished by the police officer and record their satisfaction that the arrest is justified. Casual and mechanical authorization of detention was strongly deprecated.14
5. Consequences of Non-Compliance: The Court made the guidelines enforceable by stipulating that any police officer or judicial magistrate failing to comply with these directions would be liable for departmental action and contempt of court.5

The Arnesh Kumar guidelines have had a profound impact, not just on Section 498A cases but on the entire criminal justice system, by fundamentally altering the dynamics of arrest and detention for a vast category of offenses.

2.3. The Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Standards

In the adversarial system of criminal justice followed in India, the burden of proof rests firmly on the prosecution. In a trial under Section 498A, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the allegations of cruelty against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.17 The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and there is no automatic presumption of cruelty under Section 498A itself.

This is an important distinction from the allied provisions in the Evidence Act. Section 113A of the Evidence Act allows a court to presume (may presume) that a wife’s suicide within seven years of marriage was abetted by the husband or his relatives if cruelty is established. This is a rebuttable presumption. In contrast, Section 113B, dealing with dowry death, creates a mandatory presumption (shall presume) of guilt if the prosecution proves that the deceased was subjected to dowry-related cruelty “soon before her death”.11 The absence of such a presumptive clause in Section 498A means that the prosecution must independently establish each ingredient of the offense with credible and cogent evidence.

Recognizing the potential for false implication, the Supreme Court has consistently raised the evidentiary bar for the prosecution. It has repeatedly held that convictions cannot be based on vague, general, and omnibus allegations.36 The Court demands specific and concrete particulars regarding the nature of the cruelty, the date, time, and place of the incidents, and the specific role played by each accused person.41 This judicial insistence on specificity serves as a crucial filter to weed out complaints that are filed with the malicious intent of implicating an entire family without any factual basis.

Section 3: A Thematic Compendium of Supreme Court Judgments Favouring the Accused

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on Section 498A is a testament to its role as the guardian of constitutional rights. While upholding the law’s protective mandate, the Court has, through a catena of judgments, carved out crucial exceptions and safeguards to protect the innocent from the rigors of a malicious prosecution. This section presents a thematic analysis of over 30 such landmark judgments, preceded by a master table for quick reference.

 

Table 1: Supreme Court Judgments on Section 498A Favouring the Husband/Relatives

Sr. No.	Case Name & Citation	Year	Key Principle/Ground for Relief
1.	Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324 5	2000	Overt acts must be proved for each relative; roping in all relations weakens the prosecution’s case.
2.	K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, (2002) 7 SCC 55 44	2002	Acquittal under S.304B is possible if harassment is not linked to dowry, but conviction under S.498A/306 can be sustained on grounds of other cruelty.
3.	Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand, 2003 CriLJ 2759 44	2003	Highlighted gross misuse of the law by implicating entire families and called for review.
4.	Sushil Kumar Sharma v. UOI, (2005) 6 SCC 281 1	2005	Termed misuse of S.498A as “legal terrorism” while upholding its constitutionality.
5.	Ramesh v. State of TN, (2005) 3 SCC 507 4	2005	Quashed proceedings against a married sister living separately due to lack of specific allegations.
6.	Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558 28	2006	Filing of false criminal cases by a spouse amounts to mental cruelty, a ground for divorce.
7.	Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 7	2007	Elaborated on the concept of ‘mental cruelty’ for divorce, providing an illustrative list of instances.
8.	Onkar Nath Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2007) 14 SCALE 307 44	2007	Quashed charges where complaint lacked allegations of entrustment (for S.406) and specific harassment (for S.498A).
9.	Neelu Chopra & Anr. v. Bharati, (2009) 10 SCC 184 5	2009	Quashed proceedings based on vague, general allegations against elderly in-laws.
10.	Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330 5	2009	Petty quarrels do not amount to ‘cruelty’; cruelty must be continuous or in close proximity to the complaint.
11.	U. Suvetha v. State, (2009) 6 SCC 757 17	2009	A ‘girlfriend’ or ‘concubine’ is not a ‘relative’ under S.498A.
12.	Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 8	2010	Condemned the tendency to involve all relatives in matrimonial disputes and urged for caution.
13.	A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P., (2011) 7 SCC 616 44	2011	A ‘second wife’ can file a 498A complaint, broadening the scope of ‘husband’ to prevent misuse of bigamy as a defense.
14.	Geeta Mehrotra v. State of UP, (2012) 10 SCC 741 50	2012	Quashed proceedings against sister-in-law and brother-in-law due to casual reference and lack of specific allegations.
15.	Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48 44	2013	Extra-marital affair of husband per se may not amount to mental cruelty under S.498A to abet suicide.
16.	K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 7	2013	Filing a false criminal complaint under S.498A is a clear act of mental cruelty, a valid ground for divorce.
17.	Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 2	2014	Issued mandatory guidelines to prevent automatic arrests in S.498A cases.
18.	Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 10 SCC 663 65	2014	A purely civil dispute (non-payment for contract) cannot be given the cloak of a criminal offense.
19.	Pritam Ashok Sadaphule v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 11 SCC 769 68	2015	Noted repeated complaints on the same set of facts aimed at harassing the husband and family.
20.	Ramesh Rajagopal v. Devi Polymers (P) Ltd., (2016) 6 SCC 310 70	2016	Quashed proceedings where facts did not infer commission of any IPC offense. (General principle application)
21.	Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 9 SCC 1 71	2016	General principle on quashing when no prima facie case is made out.
22.	M. Srinivasulu v. State of A.P., (2007) 12 SCC 443 73	2007	Acquittal where letters from deceased showed marital discord but no dowry demand.
23.	Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala, (2009) 14 SCC 466 76	2009	Quashed FIR where allegations did not meet the threshold of cruelty under Explanation (a) or (b).
24.	Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani, (2020) 18 SCC 247 28	2019	Husband’s acquittal in a S.498A case is a valid ground for him to seek divorce for cruelty.
25.	Kamlesh Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 11 SCC 648 79	2019	High Court ought to consider anticipatory bail on merits even if a quashing petition was previously rejected.
26.	Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 82	2022	Reaffirmed that omnibus allegations against relatives without specific roles are an abuse of process.
27.	Mariano Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police, (2022) 9 SCC 738 44	2022	For abetment of suicide (S.306) coupled with S.498A, a clear mens rea and positive action proximate to the time of death are required.
28.	Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083 86	2023	Quashed case against in-laws based on general, omnibus allegations, reiterating Kahkashan Kausar.
29.	Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 7	2024	Quashed proceedings against relatives living in a different city, highlighting the misuse of the provision.
30.	Rajesh Chaddha v. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 671 36	2025	Acquitted husband after 26 years, noting vague allegations, lack of evidence, and that the FIR was filed after the divorce petition.
31.	Kamal & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 610 93	2025	Quashed FIR against in-laws filed as a counterblast to divorce proceedings; minor taunts are part of daily life.
32.	Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2025 INSC 803 40	2025	Quashed FIR filed by a police officer due to vague, omnibus allegations against multiple relatives, including a tailor.
33.	State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 98	1992	Laid down the foundational principles for quashing an FIR, including cases instituted with malicious intent. (Foundational case)

3.1. The Doctrine of Omnibus Allegations: Quashing for Vagueness

One of the most frequently invoked grounds for quashing Section 498A proceedings is the presence of “general and omnibus” allegations. This refers to complaints where the wife makes sweeping accusations against the husband and all his relatives without attributing specific roles or acts of cruelty to each individual.42 The Supreme Court has consistently held that such complaints are an abuse of the legal process and cannot be sustained.

In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022), the Court forcefully reiterated this principle. It observed that there is an “increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes” and that allowing prosecution based on vague allegations would be an “abuse of the process of law”.82 The Court emphasized that a criminal trial, even one that ultimately results in an acquittal, inflicts “severe scars” upon the accused, and therefore, such exercises must be discouraged at the threshold if the complaint lacks substance.83 This sentiment was echoed in

Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023), where the Court quashed proceedings against the in-laws, reaffirming that courts must be “extremely careful and cautious” and consider “pragmatic realities,” such as relatives living in different cities who could not have possibly been involved in the day-to-day alleged incidents.86

Earlier, in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of UP (2012), the Court quashed proceedings against the husband’s sister and brother, noting that their names were included only by way of a “casual reference” without any specific allegation of their active involvement in demanding dowry or inflicting torture.50 The recent case of

Ghanshyam Soni v. State (2025) provides a stark example, where the Court quashed an FIR that had arrayed not only the aged parents-in-law and five sisters but also a tailor as accused persons based on unsubstantiated and generic claims.40 The underlying principle is clear: criminal liability is personal, and a person cannot be subjected to a criminal trial merely because they are related to the husband.

3.2. Malafide Intent and Counterblast FIRs

The Supreme Court is acutely aware that the timing and context of an FIR can often reveal the complainant’s true motive. A recurring pattern observed by the Court is the filing of a Section 498A complaint as a counterblast, immediately after the husband initiates legal proceedings for divorce or restitution of conjugal rights.89

In Kamal & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2025), this issue was central to the Court’s decision. The FIR was lodged just three days after the wife was served with summons for divorce proceedings initiated by the husband, after fourteen years of marriage. The Court found this timing conspicuous and suggestive of a retaliatory motive.93 It held that in such circumstances, especially when allegations surface after a long period of marriage, courts must be “circumspect” and should not take the allegations at face value. The Court famously observed that “a few taunts here and there is a part of everyday life which for happiness of the family are usually ignored” and should not be criminalized under the grave provisions of Section 498A.93

Similarly, in Rajesh Chaddha v. State of U.P. (2025), the Court, while acquitting the husband after a 26-year ordeal, took specific note of the fact that the FIR was lodged months after the husband had already filed a divorce petition. This delay and context, coupled with the vagueness of the allegations, led the Court to conclude that the FIR “was not genuine”.36 These judgments draw strength from the foundational principles laid down in

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), which established that criminal proceedings that are “manifestly attended with mala fide” or “maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive” are liable to be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court.98

3.3. Failure to Establish ‘Cruelty’ or Dowry Demand

A significant number of acquittals and quashings occur because the prosecution’s allegations, even if believed, do not meet the high legal threshold of ‘cruelty’ as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A.

In M. Srinivasulu v. State of A.P. (2007), the husband was acquitted because a thorough examination of the letters written by the deceased wife revealed evidence of marital discord and unhappiness but contained “no allegations of any demand for dowry”.73 The Court found that the lower courts had selectively read sentences to infer dowry demand, a practice it disapproved of. This case underscores the importance of examining evidence holistically.

The case of Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam (2009) clarified that not all unpleasantness amounts to criminal cruelty. The Court held that “petty quarrels” are not covered, and the alleged acts of cruelty must be continuous or occur in close proximity to the time of lodging the complaint to be considered grave.5

Perhaps the most nuanced judgment in this category is Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat (2013). The Court was faced with a case where the husband had an extra-marital affair, which allegedly led to the wife’s suicide. The Court held that an extra-marital affair, while it may be illegal and immoral and a ground for divorce, does not per se amount to the kind of mental cruelty that would drive a person to suicide and attract the penal provisions of Section 498A read with Section 306 (abetment of suicide).44 This judgment distinguishes between moral or social wrongs and the specific ingredients of a criminal offense.

3.4. False Implication of Relatives: A Judicial Red Line

The judiciary’s concern for the false implication of the husband’s relatives is a consistent theme. This concern has led to the development of a clear judicial red line against the indiscriminate roping in of family members. The analysis of these judgments reveals a de facto judicial checklist that courts often employ to identify potentially malicious complaints. This checklist includes scrutinizing factors like: (a) whether allegations are omnibus or specific to each accused; (b) the timing of the FIR, especially in relation to other legal proceedings; (c) the physical location and residence of the implicated relatives; (d) the presence or absence of corroborating evidence, particularly for claims of physical harm; and (e) any significant and unexplained delays in filing the complaint. This informal yet powerful heuristic serves as a filtering mechanism to protect innocent family members from the ordeal of a criminal trial.

Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000) was one of the earliest cases to address this issue. The Court observed the “tendency… for roping in all relations” and laid down a crucial principle: for relatives other than the husband, specific overt acts must be attributed and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.5 This principle has been the cornerstone of many subsequent acquittals.

In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010), the Court expressed deep concern over the “alarming increase” in such cases and the tendency to implicate all relatives, including those living in different cities. It urged for caution and called upon the legislature to address the issue of frivolous complaints.8

The definition of ‘relative’ itself became a tool for this safeguard in U. Suvetha v. State (2009). By holding that a ‘relative’ must be connected by blood, marriage, or adoption, the Court drew a clear boundary, preventing the law from being misused against individuals like a husband’s girlfriend or paramour, who do not fall within the legal definition of family.17

3.5. The Aftermath: False 498A Complaint as Mental Cruelty for Divorce

In a remarkable display of judicial creativity, the Supreme Court has bridged the gap between criminal and civil law by holding that a false and malicious prosecution under Section 498A can itself be a ground for divorce.

The most definitive pronouncement on this came in Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani (2019). The Court unequivocally held that when a husband is subjected to a criminal trial under Section 498A and is ultimately acquitted, the act of the wife in initiating such a false prosecution constitutes mental cruelty.28 The Court reasoned that undergoing a criminal trial is an ordeal that causes immense mental pain and suffering, and if the allegations are proven to be baseless, the wronged spouse is entitled to a divorce on the ground of cruelty.

This principle was also affirmed in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013), where the Court described the filing of a false criminal complaint as an act of “unquestionable mental cruelty”.7 The foundation for this line of reasoning was laid in earlier cases like

Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006), which linked false complaints and defamation to the concept of mental cruelty and famously advocated for recognizing the “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” as a ground for divorce, noting that forcing parties to remain in a dead marriage is itself a form of cruelty.28 This line of judgments provides a crucial remedy for husbands who have been wrongfully prosecuted, ensuring that there is a civil consequence for the misuse of criminal law.

Section 4: Conclusion and Future Outlook

Synthesis of Judicial Wisdom

The four-decade journey of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and its recent reincarnation as Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, presents a compelling case study in the dynamic interplay between legislative intent and judicial interpretation. The analysis of over thirty Supreme Court judgments reveals a consistent and evolving jurisprudence aimed at balancing the law’s noble objective with the imperative to protect individual liberty. While the Supreme Court has steadfastly upheld the constitutional validity of the provision, recognizing its necessity as a shield for vulnerable women 5, it has simultaneously erected a formidable framework of safeguards against its misuse.

The judicial wisdom distilled from this body of case law can be synthesized into four core principles. First, the principle of specificity, which demands that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained on vague, general, or omnibus allegations; the complaint must clearly articulate the specific role and acts of each accused.83 Second, the

principle of scrutiny of motive, which empowers courts to examine the timing and context of a complaint to identify mala fide intent, particularly in cases filed as a counterblast to divorce proceedings.89 Third, the

principle of protection of relatives, which mandates a cautious approach towards the implication of family members, especially those residing separately, and narrowly defines who can be prosecuted as a ‘relative’.26 Fourth, the

principle of adherence to evidentiary standards, which reinforces that the prosecution bears the burden of proving ‘cruelty’ beyond a reasonable doubt and that not all marital discord meets this high legal threshold.22 The landmark

Arnesh Kumar guidelines stand as the pinnacle of this judicial intervention, creating a procedural bulwark against arbitrary arrests.38

The Path Forward: A Call for Legislative Reform

Despite this robust judicial framework, the fact remains that these are reactive measures. The root of the problem—the inherent harshness of a non-bailable and non-compoundable provision—can only be addressed through legislative reform. The Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, expressed its anguish over the misuse of the law and has urged the legislature to revisit the provision.8 The retention of Section 498A in its original form within the BNS, without incorporating any of the suggested changes, is a missed opportunity.

The path forward requires legislative action on at least two key fronts:

1. Making the Offense Compoundable: Currently, a Section 498A case cannot be withdrawn by the complainant even if the parties reach a settlement. The only recourse is to approach the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR, which is a cumbersome and expensive process.6 Making the offense compoundable, with the permission of the court, would empower the parties to reach an amicable settlement. This would not only reduce the burden on the judicial system but also allow couples who wish to reconcile or part ways amicably to do so without the shadow of a criminal trial looming over them.9
2. Introducing Penalties for Malicious Prosecution: To create a genuine deterrent against the filing of false cases, there is a need for a specific provision that penalizes malicious complaints under Section 498A. While remedies for malicious prosecution and defamation exist in law, they are often difficult to pursue. An explicit penalty within the statutory framework would send a strong signal that while genuine victims will be protected, those who abuse the law will face consequences.29

Final Remarks

The jurisprudential journey of Section 498A reflects the Indian judiciary’s commitment to adaptive and justice-oriented interpretation. The courts have shown remarkable sagacity in striking a delicate balance, ensuring that the law remains an effective instrument for combating domestic violence while simultaneously preventing its transformation into a tool of harassment. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court—from the Arnesh Kumar guidelines on arrest to the quashing of proceedings based on omnibus allegations—serve as vital checks and balances. However, judicial wisdom can only go so far. The ultimate responsibility for refining the law lies with the legislature. As India transitions to the new criminal codes, the continued relevance and fairness of Section 85 of the BNS will depend not only on continued judicial vigilance but also on the legislative will to enact reforms that address the long-standing concerns of misuse, thereby ensuring that the law truly serves the ends of justice for all.

Works cited

1. Section 498A IPC – Ministry of Home Affairs, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/Adv498_220114_0.PDF
2. A Guide to Section 498a IPC Amendment – AM LEGAL, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://amlegal.in/section-498a-ipc-amendment/
3. Analysis of Section 498A IPC: Legal Armor or Legal Ammunition? – Jus Corpus Law Journal, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.juscorpus.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/15.-Aryan-Gupta.pdf
4. 1 SUPREME COURT GUIDELINES GIVING NEW DIMENSIONS TO SECTION 498 A IPC – JUSTLAW, accessed on June 20, 2025, http://justlaw.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Article-SS-498-A-Dowry.pdf
5. Landmark Judgments on Section 498A IPC – Indian Family Lawyers, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.indianfamilylawyers.com/498a/landmark-judgments-on-section-498a-ipc
6. What is Section 498A IPC/85 BNS and what are its consequences? | Advocate J.S. Rohilla, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://jsrohilla.in/what-is-section-498a-ipc-85-bns-and-what-are-its-consequences/
7. Section 498A: Misuse or inappropriate application? | CJP – Citizens for Justice and Peace, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://cjp.org.in/section-498a-misuse-or-inappropriate-application/
8. “Replication Of 498A In BNS Without Protections For Husbands Is Really Concerning”: SC Anguish On New Criminal Laws – LawChakra, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://lawchakra.in/supreme-court/sc-concerned-over-bnss-498a-replication/
9. Debate Over 498A Misuse Grows Louder | Delhi News – Times of India, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/debate-over-498a-misuse-grows-louder/articleshow/121855255.cms
10. A Complete Guide to 498a IPC Punishment – AM LEGAL, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://amlegal.in/498a-ipc-punishment/
11. Section 498A IPC punishment – iPleaders, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-498a-ipc-punishment/
12. Amend Section 498-A IPC: Supreme Court To Parliament | Read History, Misuse, Landmark Judgments – Voice For Men, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://voiceformenindia.com/amend-section-498-a-ipc-supreme-court-to-parliament-read-history-misuse-landmark-judgments/
13. What is Section 498A IPC? | FAQ about 498A – Tripaksha Litigation, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://tripakshalitigation.com/498a/
14. 498A COMPLETE JOURNEY – Mahesh Tiwari & Associates, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.maheshtiwarilegal.com/498a/498a-complete-journey
15. Section 498A – India Code, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_1523266765688&orderno=562
16. Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/538436/
17. Cruelty to Women [S. 498-A IPC and allied sections] | SCC Times, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2018/12/03/law-for-laymen-section-498-a-ipc-and-allied-sections-cruelty-to-women/
18. Judicial Intervention With Regard to Cruelty Against Women : An Analysis of Sec. 498A IPC – Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.bbau.ac.in/dept/HR/TM/Judicial%20Intervent.pdf
19. Supreme Court: Dowry Demand Not Essential to Prove Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://courtbook.in/posts/supreme-court-dowry-demand-not-essential-to-prove-cruelty-under-section-498a-ipc
20. sarin advocate – I.P.C. 498A – Google Sites, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://sites.google.com/site/sarinadvocate/family-court/ipc-498a
21. SAMAR GHOSH Versus JAYA GHOSH , 26 March 2007 – LawSuit – The Unique Case Finder, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://lawsuitcasefinder.com/casedetail?id=U2FsdGVkX1ebh78MEO9PjZHyLHbCCebh78sbKX0I8obtAIuDgmYMgs5
22. Manju Ram Kalita v. State Of Assam (2009): Reaffirming the Standards for Establishing Cruelty under Section 498-A IPC – CaseMine, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/manju-ram-kalita-v.-state-of-assam-(2009):-reaffirming-the-standards-for-establishing-cruelty-under-section-498-a-ipc/view
23. A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY ON THE EFFICACY OF SECTION 498-A IPC – Feminist Law Archives, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://feministlawarchives.pldindia.org/wp-content/uploads/Humsafar-Draft-Rep-498A-27.6.pdf
24. A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF SECTION 498A OF IPC – Lawful Legal, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://lawfullegal.in/a-critical-analysis-of-section-498a-of-ipc/
25. Critical Evaluation of Section 498-A. Indian Penal Code in the Light of Recent Guidelines given by the Supreme Court, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://ijarsct.co.in/Paper17206.pdf
26. Supreme Court of India U.Suvetha vs State By Insp.Of Police & Anr …, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://jajharkhand.in/wp/wp-content/judicial_updates_files/07_Criminal_Law/19_relative_of_husband/U.Suvetha_vs_State_By_Insp.Of_Police_&_Anr_on_6_May,_2009.PDF
27. A Landmark Judgment on Dowry Harassment Laws and Misuse of Section 498-A IPC, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://thelegalshots.com/blog/a-landmark-judgment-on-dowry-harassment-laws-and-misuse-of-section-498a-ipc/
28. Judgments on Divorce in Favor of the Husband- Divorce Lawyer – VR Associates Law Firm, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.vipinraina.com/blog/judgments-on-divorce-in-favor-of-the-husband-divorce-lawyer.php
29. How to Deal with False 498a Case – AM LEGAL, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://amlegal.in/false-498a-case/
30. RANI NARASIMHA SASTRY Vs. RANI SUNEELA RANI [CIVIL …, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://recordoflaw.in/rani-narasimha-sastry-vs-rani-suneela-rani/
31. K. Srinivas Rao vs D. A. Deepa – 2013 2 Supreme 80, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/00100052581
32. BNS Sec. 85 and 86 : New Sections of Cruelty – legallyin.com, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://legallyin.com/bns-sec-85-and-86-new-sections-of-cruelty/
33. Section 85 BNS: Cruelty by Husband or Relatives – Testbook, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://testbook.com/judiciary-notes/section-85-bns
34. IPC Section 498A – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://devgan.in/ipc/section/498A/
35. Case Summary: Sushil Kumar Sharma V. Union Of India 2005 – LegalFly, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://legalfly.in/case-summary-sushil-kumar-sharma-v-union-of-india/
36. ‘Distressed by malicious misuse of dowry laws’: Supreme Court – Deccan Herald, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.deccanherald.com/india/distressed-by-malicious-misuse-of-dowry-laws-supreme-court-3539703
37. Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar | PDF – Scribd, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/698259495/Arnesh-Kumar-vs-State-of-Bihar
38. Arnesh Kumar V. State Of Bihar & Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273 – Lawful Legal, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://lawfullegal.in/arnesh-kumar-v-state-of-bihar-anr-2014-8-scc-273/
39. 498a+burden+of+proof | Indian Case Law – CaseMine, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/search/in/498a%2Bburden%2Bof%2Bproof
40. Supreme Court quashes 498A IPC case against husband and in-laws on grounds of vague allegations, warns against misuse, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://courtbook.in/posts/supreme-court-quashes-498a-ipc-case-against-husband-and-in-laws-on-grounds-of-vague-allegations-warns-against-misuse
41. Supreme Court acquits husband in 498A IPC case, expresses concern over misuse of dowry and cruelty provisions, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/05/14/supreme-court-cruelty-498a-ipc-misuse-acquittal/
42. Supreme Court Flags Misuse of Section 498A IPC, Acquits Husband In 26-year Cruelty and Dowry Case – Moneylife, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.moneylife.in/article/supreme-court-flags-misuse-of-section-498a-ipc-acquits-husband-in-26year-cruelty-and-dowry-case/77154.html
43. Kans Raj vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 26 April, 2000 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1263837/
44. 498a ipc doctypes: judgments – Indian Kanoon, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=498a%20ipc+doctypes:judgments
45. K. Prema S. Rao and Ors. vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and Ors. (25.10.2002 – SC) | PDF – Scribd, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/525903227/K-Prema-S-Rao-and-Ors-vs-Yadla-Srinivasa-Rao-and-Ors-25-10-2002-SC
46. K. Prema S. Rao And Anr vs Yadla Srinivasa Rao And Ors on 25 October, 2002 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/1250057/?formInput=306
47. rjhssonline.com, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://rjhssonline.com/HTML_Papers/Research%20Journal%20of%20Humanities%20and%20Social%20Sciences__PID__2020-11-1-14.html
48. Savitri Devi vs Ramesh Chand And Ors. on 19 May, 2003 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11307/
49. JUDGMENTS ON QUASHING OF 498A IPC – Mahesh Tiwari & Associates, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.maheshtiwarilegal.com/important-judgments/judgments-on-quashing-of-498a-ipc
50. Abuse of Process in Matrimonial Disputes: Supreme Court’s Clarification in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. – CaseMine, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/abuse-of-process-in-matrimonial-disputes:-supreme-court’s-clarification-in-geeta-mehrotra-v.-state-of-u.p./view
51. Naveen Kohli v Neelu Kohli – LawBhoomi, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/naveen-kohli-v-neelu-kohli/
52. Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2004) – Drishti Judiciary, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/hindu-law/naveen-Kohli-v-neelu-kohli-2004
53. Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 14 December, 2007, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.shadesofknife.in/onkar-nath-mishra-and-ors-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-and-anr-on-14-december-2007/
54. Onkar Nath Mishra VS State (NCT of Delhi) – Supreme Today AI, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/00500019137
55. 3233.txt, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://lnindia.ipublishcentral.com/contents/fullcontent-bkp-CSD-14881-10May2021/50167887/search/3233.txt
56. Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1567 of 2007 Kantilal Martaji Pando, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/40593.pdf
57. Preeti Gupta vs State of Jharkhand – Case Analysis – Testbook, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://testbook.com/landmark-judgements/preeti-gupta-vs-state-of-jharkhand
58. Protecting the Innocent: Supreme Court Warns Against Abuse of Dowry Laws in Disha Kapoor Case, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.bharatlaw.ai/post/protecting-the-innocent-supreme-court-warns-against-abuse-of-dowry-laws-in-disha-kapoor-case
59. A. Subash Babu vs State of A. P. – 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 689, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/00100050700
60. A.Subash Babu vs State Of A.P.& Anr on 21 July, 2011, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1342950/
61. Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 17 October, 2012, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125470413/
62. Supreme Court Judgments on Section 498A of IPC – Lawyers Law, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://lawyerslaw.org/tutorials/supreme-court-judgments-on-section-498a-of-ipc/
63. Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal Vs State of Gujarat on 9 Sep 2013 – Shades of Knife, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.shadesofknife.in/pinakin-mahipatray-rawal-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-9-sep-2013/
64. K. Srinivas Rao vs D.A. Deepa on 22 February, 2013 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14713882/
65. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Civil), accessed on June 20, 2025, https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/21970/21970_2020_7_1501_59226_Judgement_07-Feb-2025.pdf
66. Shri Binod Kumar Singh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. | Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments | Law Library | AdvocateKhoj, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=18474
67. Binod Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 30 October, 2014, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173946225/
68. Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and Others vs State of Maharasht, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/982228-pritam-ashok-sadaphule-and-others
69. 02.04.2025 COURT NO. 5 DIVISION BENCH-V HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL NOTE – Delhi High Court, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/files/2025-04/cause_list_for_02.04.2025.pdf
70. Ramesh Rajagopal v. Devi Polymers Private Limited – The Cyber …, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://cyberblogindia.in/ramesh-rajagopal-v-devi-polymers-private-limited/
71. Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh | Chhattisgarh High …, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5adec9894a932639dc993b0a
72. Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh – CaseMine, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e38d4a93261a1a768621
73. M. Srinivasulu v. State Of A.P.: Clarifying the Boundaries of Dowry Death Legislation, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/m.-srinivasulu-v.-state-of-a.p.:-clarifying-the-boundaries-of-dowry-death-legislation/view
74. M. Srinivasulu vs State Of A.P on 10 September, 2007 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1616632/
75. M. Srinivasulu vs State Of A.P on 10 September, 2007, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://jajharkhand.in/wp/wp-content/judicial_updates_files/07_Criminal_Law/04_dowry_demand_cruelty_death/M._Srinivasulu_vs_State_Of_A.P_on_10_September,_2007.PDF
76. Quashing of Section 498-A IPC Proceedings under Section 482 …, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/quashing-of-section-498-a-ipc-proceedings-under-section-482-crpc:-analysis-of-shakson-belthissor-v.-state-of-kerala-and-another/view
77. Quashed 498a against the husband as the complaint shows no allegation that there is any such conduct on the part of the appellant which could be said to be amounting to cruelty of such a nature – India, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.daaman.org/jd/shakson-belthissor-vs-state-of-kerala-%26-anr/quashed-498a-against-the-husband-as-the-complaint-shows-no-allegation-that-there-is-any-such-conduct-on-the-part-of-the-appellant-which-could-be-said-to-be-amounting-to-cruelty-of-such-a-nature
78. DIVORCE ON GROUND OF CRUELTY IN HINDU MARRIAGE ACT – S3waas, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s37a68443f5c80d181c42967cd71612af1/uploads/2025/03/20250321682441929.pdf
79. A B C D E F G H 168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. DEVI LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2010) JANU, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/admin/judgement_file/judgement_pdf/2019/volume%201/Part%20I/Devi%20Lal%20_%20State%20Of%20Rajasthan_1700890684.pdf
80. Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi (12.05.2022 – SC) – Centre for Law …, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://clpr.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/48.-Prabha_Tyagi_vs_Kamlesh_Devi_12052022__SCSC202216052210144237COM518590.pdf
81. Kamlesh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 9 July, 2019 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12513233/
82. 498A QUASHING JUDGEMENTS FROM 2020 TO 2022. – Lexspeak Legal, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://lexspeak.in/2023/01/498a-quashing-judgements-from-2020-to-2022/
83. Supreme Court Quashes False Dowry Case: Emphasizing …, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://jsrohilla.in/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-emphasizing-specificity-in-section-498a-ipc-allegations/
84. Safeguarding Dignity or Misuse? Latest Supreme Court Judgments discussing Section 498-A IPC – SCC Online, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/04/12/cruelty-against-married-woman-latest-supreme-court-judgments-on-498a-in-2022/
85. Mariano Anto Bruno vs Inspector Of Police – 2022 8 Supreme 347 …, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/00100076417
86. Quashing Of Fir Pertaining To The Offense Of Section 498a – Indian Family Lawyers, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.indianfamilylawyers.com/498a/quashing-of-fir-pertaining-to-the-offense-of-section-498a
87. High Court can entertain Section 482 Petition to quash FIR even if chargesheet has been filed during its pendency: Supreme Court – Bonumlex, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://bonumlex.com/high-court-can-entertain-section-482-petition-to-quash-fir-even-if-chargesheet-has-been-filed-during-its-pendency-supreme-court/
88. in the high court of madhya pradesh – AT INDORE, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://mphc.gov.in/upload/indore/MPHCIND/2023/MCRC/38414/MCRC_38414_2023_FinalOrder_25-07-2024.pdf
89. Divorce case: After 26-year ordeal, husband finally gets relief against 3-year rigorous imprisonment, Supreme Court flags misuse of Section 498A – The Economic Times, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://m.economictimes.com/wealth/legal/will/divorce-fight-after-26-year-ordeal-husband-finally-gets-relief-against-3-years-rigorous-imprisonment-sc-flags-misuse-of-498a/articleshow/121265069.cms
90. Supreme Court Acquits Husband in 26-Year-Old Cruelty and Dowry Case, Highlights ‘Cruel Misuse’ of Section 498A IPC, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.courtbook.in/posts/supreme-court-acquits-husband-in-26-year-old-cruelty-and-dowry-case-highlights-cruel-misuse-of-section-498a-ipc
91. Growing Tendency To Append Every Relative Of Husband Casts Serious Doubt: Supreme Court Acquits Accused In S. 498A IPC Case – Verdictum, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/abc-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-2025-insc-671-498a-ipc-case-husband-acquittal-1577553
92. 498A is a “Cruel Misuse” Supreme Court Judgement 13/5/2025 – Lexspeak Legal, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://lexspeak.in/2025/05/498a-is-a-cruel-misuse-supreme-court-judgement-13-5-2025/
93. Supreme Court’s reportable judgement regarding quashing of …, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://jsrohilla.in/supreme-courts-reportable-judgement-regarding-quashing-of-criminal-proceedings-against-the-in-laws-of-a-woman-who-had-filed-a-complaint-under-section-498a-kamal-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-am/
94. Kamal vs State of Gujarat 2025: Section 498A IPC Case Judgement – Testbook, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://testbook.com/recent-judgements/kamal-vs-state-of-gujarat
95. Supreme Court Quashes Section 498-A IPC case | SCC Times, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/06/16/allegations-are-generic-and-rather-ambiguous-sc-quashes-s-498a-ipc-case-against-husband-and-in-laws-for-lack-of-prima-facie-evidence/
96. Ghanshyam Soni vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi: Case Summary & Download PDF, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://testbook.com/recent-judgements/ghanshyam-soni-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi
97. Limitation Re-affirmed & Omnibus Allegations Rebuked: Commentary on Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2025 INSC 803 – CaseMine, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/limitation-re-affirmed-&-omnibus-allegations-rebuked:-commentary-on-ghanshyam-soni-v.-state-(govt.-of-nct-of-delhi),-2025-insc-803/view
98. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Ors (1990) – Drishti Judiciary, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/landmark-judgement/code-of-criminal-procedure/state-of-haryana-v-bhajan-lal-and-ors-1990
99. Husband gets relief in Supreme Court: Wife filed false cases of domestic violence and cruelty to force husband to agree for divorce – The Economic Times, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://m.economictimes.com/wealth/save/husband-gets-relief-in-supreme-court-wife-filed-false-cases-of-domestic-violence-and-cruelty-to-force-husband-to-agree-for-divorce/articleshow/117602778.cms
100. accessed on January 1, 1970, https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af0fe4b01497114153c7
101. Supreme Court Says Section 498A IPC is Not Against Constitution: “Misuse Claims Can’t Scrap Women’s Protection Law” – LawChakra, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://lawchakra.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-scrap-498a-constitution/
102. lawchakra.in, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://lawchakra.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-scrap-498a-constitution/#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20Today%20(April,not%20by%20scrapping%20the%20law.
103. Understanding the 498a Settlement Process: A Comprehensive Guide – AM LEGAL, accessed on June 20, 2025, https://amlegal.in/498a-settlement-process/