Author: Sukkhdev Dawar, GGSIPU
To the Point
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was introduced with the objective of protecting married women from cruelty and harassment by their husbands and in-laws, particularly in cases related to dowry demands. Enacted in 1983, the provision was intended to address the alarming rise in dowry deaths and domestic violence within matrimonial homes.
However, over the years, Section 498A has become one of the most debated provisions in Indian criminal law. Allegations regarding its misuse have raised serious concerns about arbitrary arrests, false implication of family members, and abuse of criminal process during matrimonial disputes. This has led to judicial scrutiny and a growing discourse on whether the misuse of Section 498A is a reality or merely an exaggerated narrative aimed at diluting women-centric protective legislation.
This article critically examines the allegations of misuse of Section 498A IPC by analysing judicial pronouncements, statistical trends, and constitutional principles, while also assessing whether the provision continues to serve its intended purpose in contemporary society.
Use of Legal Jargon
Section 498A IPC criminalises cruelty inflicted upon a married woman by her husband or his relatives. The offence is cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable, reflecting the legislature’s intent to provide immediate legal protection to victims. Cruelty under the provision includes both physical and mental harassment, particularly when linked to unlawful demands for dowry.
From a constitutional perspective, the provision engages a delicate balance between the right to personal liberty under Article 21 and the State’s obligation to protect women from domestic violence. Allegations of misuse often invoke the doctrine of abuse of process of law, arbitrary
exercise of police powers, and violation of procedural safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Judicial discourse has increasingly focused on preventing mechanical arrests, ensuring judicial application of mind, and preserving the principle that criminal law should not be used as a tool for coercion in matrimonial disputes.
The Proof
Claims of misuse of Section 498A are supported by both anecdotal evidence and judicial observations. Data published by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) has consistently shown a relatively low conviction rate in cases registered under Section 498A. While a low conviction rate does not automatically imply false cases, it has been cited as a factor warranting closer scrutiny of the manner in which complaints are registered and investigated.
Courts have repeatedly observed that in many cases, entire families of the husband, including elderly parents and distant relatives, are arrayed as accused without specific allegations. Such practices not only dilute the seriousness of genuine cases but also cause irreparable harm to innocent individuals.
At the same time, it is equally important to acknowledge that domestic cruelty remains underreported due to social stigma, financial dependence, and fear of retaliation. Therefore, the misuse narrative must be examined cautiously to ensure that it does not delegitimise the suffering of genuine victims or weaken an essential protective provision.
The real issue lies not in the existence of Section 498A, but in its implementation. Lack of preliminary inquiry, absence of mediation in appropriate cases, and indiscriminate arrests contribute significantly to the perception of misuse.
Abstract
Section 498A IPC was enacted as a social welfare legislation to combat cruelty and dowry-related harassment against married women. Despite its protective intent, the provision has been criticised for alleged misuse and arbitrary application, leading to judicial intervention. This article analyses whether the misuse of Section 498A is a myth or a reality by examining constitutional principles, judicial precedents, and empirical data. It argues that while instances of misuse do exist, they are not sufficient to undermine the necessity of the provision. The
article concludes that a balanced approach involving procedural safeguards rather than dilution of the law is essential to uphold both women’s rights and personal liberty.
Case Laws
Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005)
The Supreme Court acknowledged that Section 498A can be misused and referred to such misuse as “legal terrorism” in certain cases. However, the Court categorically upheld the constitutional validity of the provision, stating that mere possibility of abuse cannot be a ground for striking down a law enacted for social welfare.
Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010)
The Court expressed serious concern over the tendency to implicate all relatives of the husband without specific allegations. It emphasised the need for careful scrutiny of complaints to prevent misuse of criminal law and unnecessary harassment of innocent persons.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)
This landmark judgment addressed the issue of arbitrary arrests under Section 498A. The Supreme Court held that arrest is not mandatory in offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and issued mandatory guidelines under Section 41 CrPC. The judgment significantly curtailed mechanical arrests and reinforced the protection of personal liberty.
Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (2018)
The Court struck down mandatory Family Welfare Committees but reiterated the importance of procedural safeguards. It maintained that courts must strike a balance between preventing misuse and ensuring effective protection for victims of domestic cruelty.
Conclusion
The misuse of Section 498A IPC is not a myth, but neither is it the dominant reality. While instances of abuse of the provision do exist, they represent an exception rather than the rule. The persistent problem of domestic cruelty and dowry harassment underscores the continued relevance of Section 498A as a protective legal mechanism.
Judicial interventions have played a crucial role in ensuring that the provision is not applied arbitrarily. Guidelines laid down in cases such as Arnesh Kumar have strengthened procedural safeguards without diluting the substantive rights of women. The solution lies not in repealing or weakening Section 498A, but in ensuring responsible implementation, police sensitisation, and judicial vigilance.
Ultimately, a legal framework that protects women while safeguarding individual liberty is essential for achieving substantive justice and maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system.
FAQS
Is Section 498A IPC frequently misused?
While there are instances of misuse, courts have clarified that such cases are not the norm and do not justify diluting the provision.
Does low conviction rate indicate false cases?
Not necessarily. Low conviction rates may result from poor investigation, social pressures, or compromise, and cannot alone establish misuse.
Are arrests mandatory in 498A cases?
No. As per Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, arrest must comply with Section 41 CrPC and cannot be automatic.
Can innocent relatives seek relief?
Yes. Courts may grant anticipatory bail, quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, or discharge accused where allegations are vague.
What is the way forward?
Strict adherence to procedural safeguards, police training, and judicial oversight are necessary to prevent misuse while preserving the protective intent of Section 498A.
