From Section 498A to Section 85: Analyzing Misuse of Cruelty Provisions under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in Modern Society

Authored By: Shubham Sil

Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law College Pune

Abstract: Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was enacted in 1983, representing a landmark legislative initiative to address the serious social evil of dowry and also the victimization of married women from cruelty from their husbands and in-laws. While the passage of this law was indeed a progressive and necessary response, its contemporary application has become a subject of significant soul searching and judicial scrutiny. This article examines the effectiveness and potential consequences of Section 85 of Bharati Nyaya Sanhita that is Section 498A of Indian Penal Code in a modern context. It follows the law’s noble beginnings, summarizes the supreme courts observations as to the alleged misuse of the section as a “legal weapon” for extortion and harassment additionally examines the damaging social and psychological harm to men and their families. It summarizes important case law and the Supreme Court’s attempts to protect against arbitrary arrest and misuse of Sections with ill-intentions. Finally, it argues for specific legal reforms such as making the offence compoundable and imposing a mandatory preliminary inquiry to ensure that the law serves as a barrier for vulnerability and not as a vengeance weapon against abuse, and to strike an important balance between gender justice and fundamental justice.

Introduction:

Section 498A of the IPC was an important and groundbreaking a law aimed at protecting married women from cruelty and abuse of family members in the context of dowry and helping curb violence against women. It was perceived as a landmark and was in alignmnet with progressive measures aimed at domestic violence. Since its inception, it has faced some judicial scrutiny and public discourse in terms of its alleged misuse for purposes of extortion and harassment against men. The an entire generation of practitioners / professionals from lawyers to law enforcement have used 498a. In 2023, Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) replaced Section 498A, extended the protective nature of the law and streamlined criminal and civil procedures. This article provides a review of the evolution of statutes, statutes and case laws, and today’s effectiveness of the provisions. It is presented primarily to provide a critique and urge legislative and judicial processes to stamp out abuses designed to protect vulnerable Women while ensuring misuse and false allegations do not occur.

Historical Background and Legislative Intent:

Section 498A of the IPC was introduced in 1983 to protect married women against cruelty and dowry-related harassment at the hands of their husbands or in-laws. Prior to this legislation, victims of dowry had no legal protection because domestic violence was, in general, ignored or not considered serious. Section 498A also expressly defined and exposed criminality of any acts leading to physical or mental harm as a result of a demand for dowry. Furthermore, it made ‘cruelty’ a grave offense that was non-bailable and cognizable. Importantly, Section 498A empowered married women to seek justice in the courts as well as seriously punish the most serious acts of abuse – the intention was to act as a deterrent.

Transition and Continuity still Judicial Observations and Concerns over Misuse:

The Act received a replacement with better clarity in interpretation; and still, under which the purpose of Section 498A of IPC was intended to protect women from grievous abuse, courts have begun to regularly see instances in which the Section is misused by complainants to harass men and their families and use it as an extortion tool, even after the recent replacement of the Act. The Indian judiciary has taken note and has expressed alarm over the weaponization of law; even after the replacement with better interpretation and clarity of the words, the Indian judiciary has made mention of claims that some complainants are filing false or exaggerated cases, as leverage in matrimonial disputes. Some of the landmark cases which are prominent in Section 498A of IPC and Section 85 of BNS are:

Misuse of Law and Abuse (Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar):

In a marriage dispute of Arnesh Kumar and his wife, Sweta Kiran, got married on July 1, 2007. Arnesh’s family was accused of demanding a dowry by the wife and her family a few years after the marriage, including a Maruti car, an air conditioner, a TV set, and ₹8 lakhs in cash. She alleged that when she presented these demands to her husband, he sustained his family and threatened that if the dowry demands were not fulfilled, he would marry another woman. She claimed that she was subsequently forced out of her matrimonial house due to non-payment of the demands. The FIR was lodged against Arnesh Kumar and his family under Section 498A of the IPC (Cruelty by husband or his relatives) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on these grounds. Arrested in fear, Arnesh Kumar made an application for anticipatory bail, a statutory provision that safeguards a person from arrest on complaint. His application was turned down by the Sessions Court as well as by the Patna High Court. Perturbed by the refusal of anticipatory bail, Arnesh Kumar made a Special Leave Petition (SLP) to the Supreme Court of India. The case raised a number of serious issues to be addressed by the Supreme Court and that is the first issue was the high frequency of the arrests made by police in Section 498A cases that were normally made without any prior investigation or for a legitimate reason for custodial interrogation. The Court had to confront the increasing complaint that Section 498A, a legislation meant to secure vulnerable women, was being abused as an instrument to harass husbands and their kin. This includes elderly parents and far-off relatives. The Court was required to consider whether the police officers were complying with the obligatory procedure under Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), governing the jurisdiction of police to arrest without warrant. The Court also questioned judicial magistrates’ role who were mechanically sanctioning detention of the accused without adequately examining the reasons of arrest given by the police. The Supreme Court, in its July 2, 2014 judgment, recognized the “phenomenal rise of matrimonial disputes” and Section 498A has turned into a “sword in the hands of a disgruntled wife” instead of a shield. The Court also condemned the indiscriminate and mechanical police arrests. The Court did not grant anticipatory bail to Arnesh Kumar. It rather utilized the case as a means to provide landmark guidelines for preventing arbitrary arrests. The most important directions and guidelines issued by the Supreme Court were:

No Automatic Arrests: Police officers will no longer be allowed to arrest a person automatically just because there has been a complaint filed under Section 498A.

Compulsory Checklists (Section 41 CrPC): In every case in which the offence is punishable with imprisonment for seven years or less, such as Section 498A, police officers are required to first ensure that the arrest is unavoidable. They need to put down on paper the justification of their decision, following a “9-point checklist” based on Section 41(1)(b)(ii) CrPC. An arrest can be justified only if it is unavoidable for:

Correct investigation of the crime.
Preventing the accused from re-offending.
Preventing the accused from tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Securing the presence of the accused before court.

Communication of Non-Arrest: Where the police officer does not arrest the accused, he has to deliver a written notice in terms of Section 41A of the CrPC to the accused to appear before him for questioning. A copy of the notice and the grounds of non-arrest has to be communicated to the magistrate.

Magistrate’s Responsibility: The Court also imposed a responsibility on magistrates. Whenever an accused individual is taken before a magistrate, the magistrate is required to ensure that police has complied with all the rules and there are reasonable grounds for arrest. The magistrate shall not grant detention mechanically to the accused.

Penalty for Contravention: The Supreme Court cautioned that in case of any default by police officers or judicial magistrates to abide by these guidelines, they will become answerable for departmental action and contempt of court.[1]

False Allegation and Harassment of Family Members (Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P):

A wife charged her husband, Rajesh Sharma, and all of his family members for dowry demand and harassment. After some hearings, the trial court summoned the husband only, but a higher court ordered the family members to be summoned. The accused person then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court identified the issue of “over-implication” of relatives (of the husband) in a blanket manner, based on vague allegations that had severely affected lives and even families. In an effort to resolve this problem, the Court initially but later creased some new guidelines. The most important one was to create Family Welfare Committees (FWCs) in every district and provide the FWCs guidelines to process complaints started under Section 498A (the Domestic Violence criminal code). The Court directed that all complaints under Section 498A should be referred to the committee first for a report prior to any arrests. However, these guidelines were revoked by a larger court of the Supreme Court in the case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (2018), as they were in conflict with the CrPC, judicial overreach.[2]

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied (Atul Subhas Case):

On December 9, 2024, Atul Subhas, a 34-year-old software engineer, died in his Bengaluru home. He left a 24-page suicide note and a video which quickly went viral on social media. In his suicide note and video message, he accused his estranged wife, Nikita Singhania, and her family of harassment and extortion through multiple cases against him, including under Section 498A IPC; which includes allegations of cruelty. He indicated that they wanted ₹3 crore in settlement and money also to meet his four-year-old son. He also accused a family court judge of corruption and collusion in his harassment. The case raised immediately controversial public debate around issues of misuse of laws like Section 498A IPC; mens mental health in marital disputes; bias against men; and corruption and accountability of the judiciary. Following a police complaint by Atul’s brother, Bengaluru police have arrested Nikita Singhania, her mother, and her brother under charge of abetment of suicide, Section 306 IPC. Eventually the court in Bengaluru granted bail to the wife and family members who had been accused. Although the Karnataka High Court has upheld the FIR on the wife, this bail decision disappointed family and supporters of the deceased. Separately, Atul’s mother had made a plea to the Supreme Court for custody of her grandson. However, after a Supreme Court ruling on January 20, 2025, the court denied custody and said that the child would remain with his mother, Nikita Singhania. The court is quoted to say that Atul’s mother was “virtually a stranger” to the child. The criminal case against the accused is on-going and trial is still open and the accused are innocent until proven guilty. This case continues to serve as a focal point for activism wanting gender neutral laws and reform in India’s judicial system.[3]

Unreasonable Murder for Lover (Vijay Chauhan Murder Case):

Police found the decomposed body of 35 year old Vijay Chauhan buried under the flooring at his house in Nala Sopara on July,21 2025. His family suspected foul play after he was missing for more than two weeks and recently noted the new floor tiles and the suspicious odor coming from the house. Like the case in the popular Bollywood film Drishyam, the area was searched and was subsequently a crime scene when his body was found, which prompted an investigation. The police investigation was now focused on establishing who was the perpetrator of the murder and why it was committed. The main suspects were his wife Chaman Devi and her lover Monu Vishwakarma. The motive was presumed to be a combination of an extramarital relationship and/or financial gain due to Vijay’s recent windfall or large sum from an insurance policy. The police arrested Chaman Devi and her lover Monu Vishwakarma. Both were charged with murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused appear to have provided the police with inconsistent statements, with each pointing the finger at the other as indicated by their attempts to absolve one another of any wrongdoing. The matter is still ongoing in the pre-trial stage and the court has not rendered a verdict. Both of the defendants are being held in custody awaiting to be tried for their respective roles in the murder. The victim’s seven-year-old son has been placed in the custody of his paternal family. [4]

Conclusion:

Section 498A of the IPC was a landmark legislation that was aimed at protecting married women from cruelty and dowry related abuses. Its transformation into Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita illustrates how new legislation has sought to keep the protective values of 498A, while also ameliorating legal processes. Nonetheless, the use of the laws has been subjected to immense scrutiny because of misuse as a tool for extortion and harassment to the social and psychological detriment of accused men and their families. The judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, has intervened to lay down precedents around uses of the law in order to protect against arbitrary arrests and broadly made law enforcement decisions, foremostly establishing the necessity of preliminary inquiries and mediation. Landmark cases have reinforced the value of the law as protection, while also evidence the misuse of the law in light of false allegations. Accordingly, there are firm reforms warranted, including a legislative designation as compoundable, and the ex-ante requirement for preliminary inquiries to be undertaken in addition to mediation for disputes prior to authorizing charges. It is necessary to strike a balance where the law provides all possibly protections to vulnerable women while equally mitigating the risk of misuse. The working out of this balance is paramount for gender justice as well as fundamental rule of law in India’s developing legal system.[5]

Reference(S):