Section 498A IPC Cruelty Against Married Women
Section 498A IPC Cruelty to Married Women Explained with Case Laws
(Sections 85 & 86 BNS, 2023)
Introduction & Legislative Background
Section 498A IPC (Section 85/86 BNS) was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. The provision criminalizes cruelty by the husband or his relatives. It was enacted in response to increasing incidents of dowry harassment, suicides, and bride burning due to cruel treatment meted by husband or his relatives. Prior to 1983, such offences were prosecuted under general IPC provisions dealing with assault, hurt, grievous hurt or homicide which were inadequate to deal with the atrocities against women.
Statutory Framework
Section 498A IPC (Section 85 BNS) - offence of cruelty by husband/relatives:
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subject 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.
Essential Ingredients:
- The accused must be a husband or relative of the husband.
- Woman must be subjected to cruelty.
- Conduct must be wilful and proximate.
Meaning of 'Cruelty'
Explanation to Section 498A (Section 86 BNS) - Definition of cruelty:
For the purposes of this section, 'cruelty' means-
- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
- (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
Cruelty under Section 498A IPC (Section 86 BNS) includes both physical and mental harassment. In Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa (2002), the Court held that the concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual, also depending upon the social and economic status to which such a person belongs. What constitutes cruelty for one person may not constitute cruelty for another person.
Cruelty implies such treatment that creates a reasonable apprehension in the wife's mind that living with her husband would be harmful or injurious. In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2017), Court held that proof of the wilful conduct actuating the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical, is the sine qua non for entering a finding of cruelty against the accused person.
Examples of Cruelty: continuous taunting, deprivation of basic needs, false allegations of immorality, malicious litigation, harassment for dowry, husband keeping a concubine etc.
The act or conduct must be a proximate cause of cruelty; mere wilful conduct that hurts feelings without intent to injure does not amount to cruelty. In Giridhar Shankar Tawade v State of Maharashtra (2002), SC clarified that not every quarrel amounts to cruelty; to be treated as cruelty under the stated provision it must reach a level that endangers life, limb, or mental/physical health, or drives the woman to suicide.
Who can complain of Cruelty
Section 198A CrPC (Section 220 BNSS) provides that a court shall not take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC (Section 85 BNS) except upon:
- A police report of facts constituting the offence, or
- A complaint made by the aggrieved wife herself, or by her father, mother, brother, sister, father's or mother's brother or sister, or, with the leave of the court, by any other person related to her by blood, marriage, or adoption.
In Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam (2004), the Supreme Court has held that even a second wife can file a complaint under Section 498-A. Facts of this case were that the complainant married the accused while his first wife was alive, making the marriage void. She was harassed for dowry and attempted suicide. The husband argued that Section 498A could not apply as she was not his legally wedded wife.
Held: The Supreme Court rejected this contention. It held that penal provisions must be interpreted liberally to suppress social evils. Even if marriage is void, a man who lives as a husband and harasses a woman for dowry can be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC (Section 85 BNS). It is necessary to prevent offenders from escaping liability by hiding behind technical invalidity of marriage.
In Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala (2017), Court 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 this case, the parties did not perform any ceremony and just started living together. It was held that a woman in a live-in relationship was not entitled to file a complaint under the section.
Who can be prosecuted for cruelty
The offence under s 498A is restricted to only acts of commission or omission done by the husband or his relatives. The word 'relative' has not been defined. In Vijeta Gajra v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010), Court stated that relative means relative of the husband by blood, marriage or adoption. In Anil Kumar v State of Punjab (1997), the Court held that a person who is not a relative, but a friend, however close he is to the family of the husband, cannot be prosecuted under this section.
In John Idiculla v. State of Kerala (2005), an important observation was made by the court. In this case a 'second wife', whose marriage was not legally valid, harassed the lawful first wife of her husband. The issue was whether such a second wife could be prosecuted as a 'relative of the husband'. It was held that if the woman was socially treated as wife, she could be prosecuted as a 'relative of husband'. Invalidity of marriage cannot become a license to harass the lawful wife. Therefore, a second wife can be covered under 'relative of husband' for Section 498A.
In Sunita Jha v. State of Jharkhand (2011), SC held that a live-in partner cannot be considered a 'relative of husband'.
Cruelty: A continuing offence
In Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas (1999), Court held that the essence of the offence in Section 498-A is cruelty. It is a continuing offence and on each occasion on which the woman was subjected to cruelty, she would have a new starting point of limitation. Thus, delayed complaints are maintainable. This is necessary to protect wives facing long-term cruelty.
Misuse of the provision and its Constitutionality
In Onkar Nath Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2008), Court held that Section 498-A IPC 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.
In Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005), SC held that section 498A is constitutional. Misuse is not a ground to strike it down. Courts and police must prevent abuse but cannot invalidate provision. Section 498A remains valid despite potential misuse.
Directions and guidelines issued by the SC to combat misuse of s 498A
In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), the Supreme Court was concerned with routine arrests and misuse of law and thus issued following guidelines:
- Police officers not to automatically arrest the accused when a case under 498-A IPC is registered. They should satisfy themselves about the necessity of arrest.
- Police officers must furnish the reasons and material necessitating the arrest.
- Magistrate must record satisfaction before authorizing detention.
- Police officers failing to comply will face departmental action and contempt.
- Magistrates failing to comply will face disciplinary action by the appropriate High Court.
In Rajesh Sharma v. State of UP (2017), to prevent misuse, SC issued directions:
- Family Welfare Committees (FWCs) should be established to scrutinize complaints before arrests (later modified).
- Only designated Investigating officers of the area to investigate complaints under s 498A.
- Bail applications concerning s 498A to be decided promptly.
- Recovery of dowry items not by itself a ground to deny bail.
- No routine passport impounding or Red Corner Notices for NRIs.
- These directions are not applicable in cases involving tangible physical injuries or death.
In Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (2018), SC modified guidelines issued in Rajesh Sharma's case as below:
- Struck down mandatory Family Welfare Committees (FWCs) by citing that parallel mechanisms beyond CrPC (BNSS) are not permissible.
- Retained Arnesh Kumar safeguards against automatic arrests.
- Directed bail to be granted expeditiously.
Quashing of proceedings in cases involving cruelty against married women
Section 498-A IPC is non-compoundable. Non-compoundable offences are those where the court cannot record the compromise between the parties and drop charges against the accused. However, in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003), Court held that if there is a genuine compromise between husband and wife, criminal complaints arising out of matrimonial discord can be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC/s 528 BNSS (inherent powers), even if the offences alleged therein are non-compoundable, because such offences are personal in nature and do not have repercussions on the society unlike heinous offences like murder, rape, etc.
In Manohar Singh v. State of M.P., (2014), it was held that in case a conviction has been recorded and sentence is awarded under Section 498-A, and if the Court feels that the parties have a real desire to bury the hatchet, in the interest of peace, it can reduce sentence of the accused to period of sentence already undergone.
Other important cases
In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022), Court held that relatives cannot be forced into trial based on vague/omnibus allegations of cruelty or harassment. Such trials cause undue hardship and must be discouraged.
In Meera v. State (2023), Court held that when a mother‑in‑law subjects her daughter‑in‑law to cruelty, it must be treated seriously. Instead of protection, harassment by elderly women aggravates cruelty. The Court emphasized that liability extends fully to female relatives.
In Surendran v. State of Kerala, Court held that evidence by related witnesses cannot be discarded solely due to relationship because offence of cruelty against women is mostly committed within the confines of matrimonial home and discarding testimony of related witness would cause injustice. However, courts should scrutinize such evidence carefully.
In Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019), Court held that cruelty is not confined to acts occurring only at the matrimonial home. Its effects and consequences continue to impact the woman even after she leaves that home. Therefore, the courts situated where the wife takes shelter after being subjected to cruelty including her parental home also have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
