Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Friday once again expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC while hearing a matrimonial dispute. The case involved a complaint filed under Section 498A by a woman within one-and-a-half months of her marriage.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the matter.

During the proceedings, Justice Nagarathna observed, “Nowadays, the mother-in-law that is the mother of the son, and the husband are very very wary of the wife because of false complaints filed. We have quashed quite a few complaints. We are not saying every case is false, but 498A is very very draconian and misused. 498A we are telling you, it is like squeezing lemon on a relationship. Nothing further we will say.”

Ultimately, the court directed the wife, husband, and husband's mother to participate in mediation to resolve their issues.

The Supreme Court has often raised concerns over the misuse of Section 498A IPC (now Sections 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) in the past year.

In May 2024, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra requested Parliament to consider making changes to Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 before they come into force, pointing out that these provisions were a verbatim reproduction of Section 498A IPC and its explanation.

Earlier this week, a bench of Justices Nagarathna and Mahadevan emphasized that matrimonial complaints must be scrutinized with great care to prevent abuse of process while quashing a cruelty and dowry case lodged by a woman against her brother-in-law on the ground that the allegations were general and vague.

Notably, in April 2025, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 498A observing that mere potential of misuse of a provision cannot be a ground to strike it down. Acknowledging that there are instances of misuse of the provision, the however Court emphasised that for every instance of misuse, there are hundreds of genuine cases where the provision acts as a safeguard against domestic violence.

While quashing criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial dispute due to vague and omnibus allegations, benches led by Justice Nagarathna have repeatedly criticized the misuse of the provision.

In December 2024, a bench of Justices Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh, cautioned against implicating all members of a husband's family in domestic cruelty cases arising from matrimonial discord. The Court criticised the growing tendency to misuse Section 498A IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against husbands and their families.

In the same month, another bench of Justice Nagarathna and Justice Pankaj Mithal said that Section 498A IPC is sometimes used alongside Sections 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural sex) and 506 (criminal intimidation) as a “combined package” to pressurise husbands and their families in matrimonial disputes. The Court cautioned women not to abuse the laws which are meant for their protection.

In February 2025, while quashing charges of cruelty, dowry demand and domestic violence, a bench of Justices Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh highlighted that invoking criminal laws in domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible material may have disastrous consequences for families.

In June 2025 a bench of Justices Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma quashed an FIR and chargesheet filed under Section 498A IPC on the ground of vague and omnibus allegations. While stressing the need to protect genuine victims of cruelty, the Court cautioned against the misuse of criminal law provisions to harass family members. It highlighted that indiscriminate prosecution, especially of distant relatives, must be avoided to prevent abuse of process.

In May 2025, the same bench acquitted a man of charges under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court noted that the allegations were vague, lacked specifics and were maliciously framed to implicate aged parents and distant relatives. It observed that the growing tendency to rope in every relative of the husband undermines the credibility of complaints and vitiates the very objective of protective legislation.

Across these rulings, the Court has maintained that while genuine cases of cruelty must be handled with sensitivity.