S.498A IPC Often Used Against Husband & His Family To Meet Wife's Unreasonable Demands, Growing Tendency Of Misuse: Supreme Court

While quashing a Section 498-A IPC (cruelty) case against a husband and in-laws of the wife, the Supreme Court today (Dec.10) again cautioned about the tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of matrimonial discord. Also, the Court criticized the growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-A IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family. Last month also, the Court expressed a word of caution to the Courts to ensure that distant relatives of a husband are not unnecessarily implicated in criminal cases filed at the instance of a wife alleging domestic cruelty. The bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh noted that the provision of Section 498-A IPC has become the legal weapon for the wives/ her relatives to settle scores with the husband/ his family without understanding the true purpose of the provision brought to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. “The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.”, the judgment authored by Justice Nagarathna said. The Court heard the criminal appeal filed by the husband and in-laws against the Telangana High Court's decision refusing to quash the domestic cruelty case registered by the wife against them. The wife had registered a domestic cruelty case against the appellants after the husband filed a petition seeking the dissolution of the marriage. Deprecating such a measure, the Court said that the intention of the provision was to protect the wives who were subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry, however, the complainant-wife had misused the provision as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband. “We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.”, the court observed. The Court held that the High Court committed a grave error in not quashing the FIR against the appellants, thus the pending case against the appellants was quashed. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. Appearance: For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shubham Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Jain, Adv. Ms. Nayan Saini, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Goyal, Adv. Ms. Honey Verma, Adv. Mr. Rahul Mohod, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Gyan, Adv. Dr. Varnit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. S Uday Bhanu, Adv. Case Title: DARA LAKSHMI NARAYANA & OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF TELANGANA & ANOTHERCitation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 968Click here to read/download the judgmentRelated Reports: S. 498A IPC | Courts Must Identify Instances Of Over Implication Of Persons In Cases & Avert Undue Suffering To Them: Supreme CourtS.498A IPC | Ensure Husband's Distant Relatives Aren't Over-Implicated In Exaggerated Cases : Supreme Court Cautions Courts'Abuse Of Criminal Process, Vague Allegations' : Supreme Court Quashes Wife's S.498A Case Against In-Laws

S.498A IPC Often Used Against Husband & His Family To Meet Wife's Unreasonable Demands, Growing Tendency Of Misuse: Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags