Examining whether Section 498A IPC serves as protection or punishment, this report analyses Supreme Court judgments, judicial safeguards, and arrest guidelines addressing misuse while balancing women’s rights with safeguards against abuse of criminal law.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was introduced in 1983 to protect married women from cruelty and dowry-related harassment by their husbands and their relatives. It is a cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence, designed as a strong protective legal remedy.
With criminal law reform in India, Sections 85 & 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) now correspond to the same offence, addressing cruelty against wives and related conduct, essentially reproducing Section 498A with similar intent and penalties. The Supreme Court has actively considered concerns around misuse of both the old (498A IPC) and new provisions (Sections 85 & 86 BNS).
However, over the decades, allegations of misuse, judicial scrutiny, and calls for reform have placed this provision at the centre of intense legal and social debate.
Let’s examine the misuse of Section 498A IPC and its BNS counterparts, analyze key Supreme Court judgments, highlight judicial safeguards, and explore how courts have attempted to balance women’s protection with safeguards against abuse of criminal law.
ALSO READ: Protection for Women or Misused Legal Weapon?: Section 498A IPC Explained
Understanding Section 498A IPC and Sections 85 & 86 BNS
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 498A IPC was introduced in 1983 to address the widespread problem of cruelty and dowry-related harassment faced by married women. It criminalises acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives.
Key Features of Section 498A IPC:
Definition of Cruelty:
Cruelty under Section 498A includes:
- Any wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury to her life, limb, or health (mental or physical); or
- Harassment with a view to coercing the woman or her relatives to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security (dowry).
Punishment:
The offence is punishable with:
- Imprisonment up to three years, and
- Fine.
Nature of the Offence:
- Cognizable
- Non-bailable
- Non-compoundable
These features were deliberately incorporated to ensure strong deterrence against dowry-related cruelty, though they later gave rise to concerns regarding arbitrary arrests and over-implication.
Sections 85 & 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 498A IPC has been substantively retained but reorganised into Sections 85 and 86, without diluting its scope or punishment.
Section 85 BNS: Cruelty by Husband or Relatives of Husband
Section 85 BNS provides that:
Whoever, being the husband or relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
This section corresponds directly to Section 498A IPC and retains its essential elements, including:
- Cognizable nature
- Non-bailable character
- Non-compoundable status
Section 86 BNS: Meaning of “Cruelty”
Section 86 BNS defines cruelty for Section 85 and mirrors the explanation to Section 498A IPC. It includes:
- Wilful conduct likely to:
- Drive the woman to commit suicide; or
- Cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health (mental or physical).
- Harassment:
- To coerce unlawful demands for property or valuable security; or
- On account of failure to meet such demands.
This statutory explanation ensures continuity in judicial interpretation developed under Section 498A IPC.
Legislative Intent Behind Sections 85 & 86 BNS
The primary objective of Section 498A IPC and now Sections 85 & 86 BNS was to curb:
- Dowry-related deaths
- Domestic cruelty and harassment
- Systemic violence against married women
Despite the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, dowry continued to be enforced through psychological, physical, and economic abuse. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasised that these provisions are protective, not punitive in spirit, and must be enforced responsibly.
ALSO READ: ‘Ineffective and Misused’: Supreme Court Flags Serious Gaps in India’s Anti-Dowry Laws
Forms of Cruelty Recognised by Courts
Courts have recognised multiple manifestations of cruelty, including:
- Physical cruelty – bodily harm or injury
- Mental cruelty – sustained psychological distress
- Emotional abuse – verbal humiliation, threats, isolation
- Financial harassment – dowry demands and economic coercion
In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy, the Supreme Court held that dowry demand itself constitutes cruelty, irrespective of physical harm.
“Misuse” of Section 498A (and Secs 85 & 86 BNS)
Misuse refers to filing matrimonial cruelty or dowry harassment complaints where allegations are vague, general, or lodged to pursue personal vendettas or pressurize husbands/families, rather than addressing genuine cruelty or dowry demands. Critics argue that the provision’s strict nature and immediate police action can be weaponised, impacting innocent family members.
However, courts stress that potential misuse cannot justify weakening protective law; genuine cruelty and abuse remain serious social issues requiring legal remedy.
Allegations of Misuse
Judicial Acknowledgment of Misuse
The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged that Section 498A has been misused in certain cases, particularly through:
- Over-implication of distant relatives
- Mechanical arrests
- Vague and omnibus allegations
In Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005), the Court observed:
“The provision is intended to be used as a shield and not an assassin’s weapon.”
However, the Court also clarified that misuse by a few cannot justify striking down a law protecting millions of women.
Reality of Domestic Violence
At the same time, courts recognise that domestic cruelty is vastly underreported due to:
- Social stigma
- Economic dependence
- Fear of marital breakdown
Therefore, the issue lies not in the existence of the law, but in its implementation.
Key Supreme Court Judgments on Misuse and Safeguards
1. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)
This landmark judgment transformed the enforcement of Section 498A.
Key Guidelines:
- Arrest is not automatic
- Police must comply with Section 41 CrPC
- Magistrates must scrutinise arrest justifications
- Arrest should be an exception, not the rule
This judgment applies to all offences punishable up to seven years, including Sections 85 & 86 BNS.
2. Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017)
The Court acknowledged rampant misuse and recommended:
- Formation of Family Welfare Committees
- Preliminary scrutiny before arrest
- Designated Investigating Officers
3. Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (2018)
The Supreme Court modified Rajesh Sharma, holding:
- Courts cannot create extra-statutory bodies
- Strict adherence to Arnesh Kumar guidelines is mandatory
- Training of investigating officers is essential
4. Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010)
The Court warned against:
- Casual implication of relatives
- Mechanical prosecution without specific allegations
Compounding, Settlement, and Quashing
Though non-compoundable, courts allow quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC in genuine settlements.
In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court held that:
- Matrimonial disputes of a personal nature may be quashed
- Settlement must be voluntary and genuine
This pragmatic approach prevents prolonged litigation and abuse of process.
Evidentiary Requirements Under Section 85 BNS
Under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, courts assess allegations of cruelty by examining the totality of evidence placed on record rather than relying on any single form of proof. Oral testimony of the aggrieved woman remains central, particularly when supported by consistent statements from relatives, neighbours, or other witnesses who have observed the conduct of the accused.
Medical evidence, such as injury reports, hospital records, and psychiatric evaluations, is often relied upon to corroborate claims of physical or mental harm. In recent years, electronic records, including messages, call recordings, emails, and social media communications, have assumed great evidentiary value, as they frequently reveal patterns of harassment or dowry demands.
Expert opinions from doctors or mental health professionals further assist courts in assessing the severity and impact of cruelty, while circumstantial evidence, such as behavioural changes, repeated complaints, or surrounding matrimonial circumstances, helps establish a sustained course of conduct.
Additionally, under Section 117 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, where a woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage and there is evidence of cruelty, the court may presume abetment by the husband or his relatives, provided the cruelty is shown to have occurred before the suicide.
Law Commission and Judicial Recommendations
With respect to reform, both judicial pronouncements and Law Commission reports have emphasised the need for procedural safeguards without weakening the protective character of the law.
Proposed reforms include:
- Judicial scrutiny before arrest
- Mediation and counselling mechanisms
- Penal action for proven false complaints
- Making the offence compoundable with court approval
The Supreme Court has reiterated that reform must not dilute protection for genuine victims.
Looking ahead, the discourse on Section 498A IPC and Sections 85 and 86 of the BNS must shift from adversarial narratives to a balanced, justice-oriented approach. Emphasis must be placed on responsible and sensitive policing, vigilant judicial oversight, and early resolution of disputes through lawful mediation mechanisms where appropriate.
Conclusion
Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, like Section 498A IPC, are necessary but sensitive provisions. While misuse exists, so does pervasive domestic cruelty. Through landmark judgments such as Arnesh Kumar, the Supreme Court has attempted to strike a constitutional balance between women’s safety and individual liberty.
The solution lies not in repeal or dilution, but in measured enforcement, judicial oversight, and social change, ensuring that the law remains a shield for victims, not a weapon of vengeance.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Misuse of Section 498A IPC
