Author: BIDISHA SAHA , HERITAGE LAW COLLEGE
ABSTRACT
Section 498A was introduced as a shield to protect women from cruelty, but somewhere along the way, the line between protection and punishment blurred, and the law itself began to be abused. This article critically analyzes the circumstances and loopholes which are leading to misuses of false allegations, societal implications, and to suggest possible reforms to ensure that Section 498A remains efficient, just and impartial.
INTRODUCTION
Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code is a stringent penal provision which was introduced in the year of 1983 to safeguard the married woman from really from egregious forms of matrimonial cruelty perpetrated by the husband or his relatives. It includes both the physical and psychological abuse including any conduct that might drive a woman to suicide, inflict grievous harm or imperil her life, and mental well-being in any form. It’s classified as a cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offense. It intends to provide immediate and robust legal protection against domestic violence. However, over the years, concerns have emerged regarding the misuse of this provision as instances have been reported where complaints are exaggerated, filed with ulterior motives, or used as leverage during marital disputes, sometimes implications innocent family members. While such misuse remain exception rather than the norm, it has nevertheless prompted judicial scrutiny and calls for balanced application ensuring that the law constitutes to shield genuine victims without becoming a tool for unwanted harassment.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, cruelty is a legally articulated concept that encompasses two distinct forms of wrongful conduct within marriage:
~ It includes any willful act or behavior by the husband or his relatives that is of such gravity as to endanger the woman’s life, leave, or mental and physical health, or is likely to drive her to suicide covering sustained physical assault, severe emotional abuse, intimidation, or psychological torture.
~ Cruelty also comprises harassment directed towards coercing the woman or her family to meet unlawful demands for dowry, property, or valuable security, or punishing her for not complying with such demands.
PUNISHMENT FOR CRUELTY UNDER SECTION 498A
If a person is found guilty of cruelty under this section, the punishment would amount to:
imprisonment for up to 3 year
fine amount will be determined by the court.
As the years passed, concerns emerged regarding the misuse of Section 498A.
MISUSE OF SECTION 498A
The discussion on the misuse of Section 498A IPC began when courts and legal scholars started noticing that, although the provision was enacted to combat genuine cruelty and dowry harassment, it was sometimes being invoked in situations where the allegations appeared exaggerated, motivated, or strategically used during marital disputes.
Nisha Sharma Dowry Case (2003)The Nisha Sharma case started as a story of bravery. In 2003, Nisha accused her would-be husband and his family of demanding dowry right before the wedding. Overnight, she became a national hero—people praised her for walking away from a marriage instead of giving in to dowry pressure. But with time, the story changed. When the case reached the court, the evidence simply didn’t match the allegations. After years of trial, the groom and his family were found innocent and acquitted. Later, it came out that the complaint may have been driven more by personal issues than by an actual dowry demand. Today, this case is often remembered as a reminder of how powerful a dowry complaint can be—and how damaging it is when such a law is misused. It shows how a single allegation can ruin reputations, break families, and turn someone into a “villain” even before the truth is known.
Then came major judicial acknowledgment came in Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005), where the Supreme Court examined the growing complaints from men and their families about being falsely implicated. In this case, the Court observed that while the section served an important social purpose, its misuse by a small group of litigants could not be ignored, warning that in extreme situations it had the potential to become a form of “legal terrorism.” This marked the beginning of the formal misuse narrative.
The debate deepened with Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010), where the Court expressed concern over the tendency of complainants to implicate every relative of the husband, including those living far away with little connection to the dispute.
However, the most influential turning point arrived in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014). In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court criticized the routine, unjustified arrests made by police simply upon receiving a 498A complaint and held that arrest should not be automatic. The Court laid down mandatory guidelines to prevent misuse, emphasizing proper investigation and the need for police and magistrates to apply their mind before arresting or remanding the accused. These judgments collectively marked the beginning of a more balanced understanding of Section 498A—recognizing both its necessity and the need for safeguards against misuse.
HOW MISUSE OCCURS IN PRACTICE
Misuse of Section 498A does not imply that the law itself is flawed; rather, the manner in which it is sometimes invoked or implemented leads to unfair outcomes. Some commonly highlighted misuse patterns include:
Roping in the entire family – It became common in many complaints for women to include every relative of the husband, including elderly parents, distant relatives, or even extended family members who do not reside with the couple. This over-inclusion caused hardship to innocents who were sometimes arrested or dragged into lengthy court battles.
Using the law as a bargaining tool – In matrimonial disputes involving divorce, alimony, or custody, Section 498A has at times been used as pressure to secure financial or property settlements.
Immediate arrest without investigation – Before the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, arrests were often made immediately after filing of the complaint, without preliminary verification, disrupting families and causing social stigma even before guilt was established.
Impact on men’s mental health – False cases can result in emotional trauma, job loss, social isolation, and, in some tragic instances, suicidal tendencies among husbands falsely accused.
RECENT CASE ILLUSTRATION OF MATRIMONIAL FRAUD UNDER SECTION 498A
A recent incident reported from Jaipur highlights the growing complexity of matrimonial fraud cases in India. A 23-year-old woman, Anuradha Paswan—referred to by the police as a “loot-and-scoot bride”—was arrested for allegedly marrying 25 men across multiple states within just seven months. According to the investigation, she was part of a coordinated marriage racket that targeted vulnerable or desperate grooms, married them, and absconded shortly after the wedding with valuables and cash. This case underscores how certain individuals exploit the sanctity of marriage—and sometimes even the looseness of legal processes—to commit fraud, thereby complicating genuine matrimonial disputes and contributing indirectly to the broader debates around misuse of matrimonial laws.
In late 2025, Gujarat Police uncovered a major matrimonial fraud racket involving a woman named Chandni, who had allegedly married at least 15 men across 10 districts using forged identity documents. The gang reportedly collected over ₹52 lakh in cash and jewelry from the victims and disappeared soon after each wedding. According to the police, when any groom attempted to recover his money or report the fraud, the accused threatened him with false rape allegations. This case further illustrates how marriage-related crimes are evolving in sophistication and how false accusations can be weaponized, thereby intensifying the ongoing discourse on misuse of laws meant to protect genuine victims.
In June 2025, Kerala Police arrested a woman named Reshma for allegedly deceiving at least ten men through repeated marriage frauds since 2014. According to officials, she entered into multiple marriages over the years, raising suspicion among the families of her prospective new grooms. Their concerns eventually led to a police complaint and her subsequent arrest. This case adds to the growing number of matrimonial fraud incidents, highlighting how systemic deception within marriages can create legal complications and fuel wider discussions on misuse of legal provisions.
RECENT CASES OF WOMEN BEING SUFFERED UNDER SECTION 498 A
Case 1: Vague Allegations Against Relatives (Post-Divorce Case)
In this case, the Supreme Court observed that the complaint mainly described the husband’s behaviour but did not include any clear or specific allegations against his relatives. The Court noted that simply naming family members without explaining what they actually did cannot justify dragging them into a criminal trial. Since there was no credible accusation or particular act of cruelty attributed to the relatives, continuing the proceedings against them would amount to unnecessary harassment and a vexatious criminal process.
Case 2: Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263
The Supreme Court acknowledged that during matrimonial disputes, emotions often run extremely high, which leads to complainants naming every member of the husband’s family—even those who had no role in the alleged cruelty. The Court clarified that remaining a “silent spectator” to a dispute is not a criminal act by itself. It also highlighted that, when relationships turn bitter, there is a tendency to exaggerate accusations, but such exaggeration should not convert a family conflict into a criminal case. The Court therefore held that involving relatives without specific allegations or proof amounts to misuse of the law
Case 3: Meera v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 31
In contrast, the Supreme Court took a strong stand in a case where a mother-in-law was found to have subjected her daughter-in-law to cruelty. The Court emphasized that when a woman inflicts cruelty on another woman, the offence becomes even more serious and deserves no leniency. It stressed that a mother-in-law is expected to protect the daughter-in-law, not harm her. This judgment shows that while false or exaggerated cases must be filtered out, genuine acts of cruelty must still be punished firmly to protect real victims.
THOUGH MISUSE CANNOT BE THE ONLY LENS
While the misuse narrative is powerful, it is equally important to remember that Section 498A is vital for a large number of genuine victims. Domestic violence remains a serious issue in India, and the law acts as a deterrent against perpetrators who may otherwise escape liability. The comparatively low conviction rate may often result from evidentiary challenges, societal pressure on women to withdraw cases, or reconciliation proceedings, rather than false allegations.
Women’s rights organizations argue that weakening the law in the name of preventing misuse could create greater hurdles for genuine victims in accessing justice. The fear of not being believed, or the fear of being accused of misusing the law, may silence women who are truly in danger. Thus, the debate must consider the societal context where violence against women remains rampant
JUDICIAL INTERVETIONS
The judiciary has played a crucial role in balancing the need for protection with safeguards against misuse. In Arnesh Kumar, the Supreme Court directed that arrests should not be made automatically and that police must follow Section 41 of the CrPC, which mandates recording reasons for arrest. Magistrates must also apply their mind before authorizing judicial custody.
In another important judgment, the Supreme Court in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (2018) emphasized that while safeguards are necessary, they should not dilute the purpose of Section 498A. The Court attempted to strike a delicate middle ground—preventing arbitrary arrest without weakening protection for women.
Some High Courts have also recommended the creation of Family Welfare Committees to scrutinize cases before arrest. Though the Supreme Court later modified this direction, the idea reflects ongoing efforts to ensure fair implementation.
In 2025, the Supreme Court once again made it clear that a case under Section 498A cannot move forward unless there is real, specific, and believable evidence. The Court pointed out that many complaints still contain broad or general accusations that do not actually describe what cruelty took place. In Sanjay D. Jain v. State of Maharashtra, the judges threw out the case against several relatives because the allegations were vague and did not mention any clear acts of harassment. A similar approach was taken in Archin Gupta v. State of Haryana, where the Court reminded that Section 498A should not be used mechanically or to drag an entire family into litigation without proper proof. The judges also expressed concern about the growing instances where the law is being misused, and they continued to acquit people when there was no solid evidence of cruelty or dowry demands. These decisions show how the Supreme Court is trying to protect genuine victims while also preventing innocent people from being unfairly trapped in criminal cases
SOCIAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACTS ON MEN AND THEIR FAMILY FACING FALSE ALEEGATIONS
The consequences of false accusations extend beyond legal proceedings. Individuals accused under Section 498A often face:
Social ostracism, as stigma attaches quickly even when allegations are unproven.
Financial strain due to court expenses and loss of employment.
Emotional distress, affecting mental health and family relationships.
Breakdown of trust between families, making reconciliation almost impossible.
Yet, it is equally important to remember that the emotional, social, and physical suffering of genuine victims of domestic violence is far more severe. The challenge lies in preventing abuse of the law without undermining its purpose.
SOCIAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT ON WOMEN WHO SUFFER CRUELTY
For women who genuinely face cruelty within marriage, the social and psychological impact is often deep and long-lasting. Many women silently endure violence for years because they fear being judged, blamed, or abandoned by their families and society. The emotional toll of constant humiliation, fear, and abuse can lead to anxiety, depression, and a profound loss of self-worth. Survivors often struggle with guilt and self-blame, believing that they somehow failed to “save” their marriage. Socially, they may face isolation, character assassination, or pressure to compromise and stay quiet “for the sake of family honor.” The stigma around speaking out makes many women feel trapped, with no safe space to share their trauma. When they finally decide to seek help, they often face long legal processes, financial instability, and emotional exhaustion. For many, the scars of domestic violence do not end with the marriage—they continue to affect their confidence, relationships, mental health, and trust in social systems. This side of the reality must never be overlooked while discussing misuse, because genuine victims pay the heaviest price, both emotionally and socially.
CONCLUSION
The cases discussed—from Chandni’s multi-district marriage fraud to Reshma’s repeated deception in Kerala, and even the cautionary judgments of the Supreme Court—show one clear truth: laws meant to protect can also be misused when emotions, relationships, and vulnerabilities collide. Section 498A was introduced with the noble intention of shielding women from cruelty and dowry harassment, and countless women still genuinely depend on it for justice. Their suffering is real, their fear is valid, and the law must continue to stand as a strong shield for them.
But side by side with these genuine cases, there exists another painful reality—the misuse of this law by a minority, which destroys the dignity, mental health, and social standing of innocent men and their families. As seen in the Nisha Sharma case and several Supreme Court rulings, vague allegations, exaggerated claims, and false complaints have ruined lives long before truth could be established. Many men today feel unheard, unprotected, and judged not by their character but by their income, their “financial worth,” and their ability to meet societal expectations. A man earning less than his wife is often treated as inferior, disrespected, or dismissed—something that would be called injustice if done to a woman.
This imbalance highlights a deeper problem: justice cannot operate on gender bias. Protecting women and protecting men are not mutually exclusive goals. The law must be a shield, not a sword; a tool for truth, not a weapon for revenge.
In the end, the real solution lies in fairness, specificity, credible evidence, and balanced legal reform. A society that genuinely seeks equality must ensure that every individual—woman or man—is treated with dignity, heard with sincerity, and judged with truth. Only then can laws like Section 498A fulfil their true purpose: protecting the innocent, punishing the guilty, and restoring balance in the delicate structure of family and society.
FAQ’S
1. What is Section 498A?
A legal provision to protect married women from cruelty, harassment, and dowry-related abuse.
2. Does misuse of Section 498A occur?
Yes, though it is not the majority of cases. Misuse happens through exaggerated claims or implicating innocent relatives.
3. What safeguards exist against misuse?
The Arnesh Kumar guidelines, judicial scrutiny, and the requirement for specific and credible allegations before arrests.
4. Do genuine victims still rely on Section 498A?
Yes. Many women face real domestic cruelty and depend on this law for protection and justice.
5. What is the central message of the article?
Section 498A must remain a shield for genuine victims, but safeguards are necessary to prevent innocent people from being unfairly targeted.
