The Complexities of Cruelty Laws in Matrimonial Disputes in India:
Analysis of Section 498A
Cruelty, especially within the confines of marriage, is a serious criminal offence in India, and it constitutes a significant ground for divorce.
The Indian legal system has established various provisions to protect individuals, particularly women, from domestic abuse, ensuring their well-being and safety.
The law’s commitment to safeguarding the rights of victims is reflected in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860, now Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which criminalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards his wife.
Legal Framework on Cruelty
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) reads as hereunder: “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
The section defines cruelty as any wilful conduct that is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health, whether mental or physical.
It also means harassment of the woman intending to coerce her or any person related to her to meet unlawful demands for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demands.
The section provides for imprisonment for up to three years, along with a fine, for those found guilty of subjecting a woman to cruelty. This is a cognizable, non- compoundable, and non-bailable offence, ensuring swift legal recourse for victims.
The provision was introduced in 1983, responding to the rising incidents of dowry deaths and domestic violence. Its primary aim was to establish a legal framework for the protection of married women, ensuring they had recourse to justice and that perpetrators were held accountable.
Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce
Cruelty is not only a criminal offence but also serves as a valid ground for divorce under various personal laws in India, including the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
In these laws, cruelty can be physical or mental, and courts have recognised a broad range of actions as constituting cruelty, from physical abuse to verbal insults and degrading treatment.
This allows courts to dissolve marriages when cruelty is proven, thereby offering relief to victims of abuse.
Suggested Read: https://ashwaryasinha.com/trending/annulment-of-marriage-in-india/
The Evolving Nature of Legal Cruelty
One of the challenges to the provisions is that the definition of cruelty is vague and broad. What behaviour encompasses cruelty is subjective. Additionally, it is irrefutably a dynamic concept, which changes with the changes in societal thinking, culture and
advancements. In Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan (1981) 4 SCC
250, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the concept of legal cruelty changes as social concepts and living standards change and evolve.
In 1987, in Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988) 1 SCC 105, the Supreme Court held that mental cruelty is a question of fact and degree and it may only be inferred by its impact on the mind of the person who bears it.
Recently, the Division Bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh explained that the word ‘cruelty’ under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act had no fixed meaning which gives the court a very wide discretion to apply it liberally and contextually.
What is cruelty in one case may not be the same for another, hence, there must be a proper understanding of the position of the spouse opposing the petition for grant of divorce as the consequences and impact may differ from person to person, based upon factors such as social setting, educational qualifications, financial status, employment, caste, community, age and place.
Get in touch with the best divorce lawyer in Delhi, India.
Judicial Precedents and Interpretation of Cruelty
The interpretation of cruelty has led to varying judgments across different courts in India, demonstrating the complexities involved in applying the law.
Due to the broad scope of the concept of legal cruelty, the judgements in matters pertaining to it vary from one court to another.
Inconsistencies in the verdicts of several High Courts in terms of what behaviour may constitute as ‘cruelty’ can be observed by
analyzing such judgements. In a recent ruling, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court overturned a 20-year-old conviction against a man and his family for alleged cruelty towards his late wife.
The court found that accusations of taunting her, not letting her watch TV,
forbidding her from visiting the temple alone and making her sleep on a carpet did not amount to “severe” actions under Section 498A and 306 (abetment to suicide) of the Indian Penal Code.
The Bombay High Court, in another criminal matter pertaining to cruelty, acquitted a man convicted for abetting the suicide of his wife by torturing her and held that section 498A IPC does not attract any and every harassment or type of cruelty.
It was held that to convict a person under section 498A, the prosecution must establish ‘continuous’ harassment.
On the other hand, in another judgement, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that forcing a wife to quit her job and conform to her husband’s preferences and lifestyle constitutes cruelty, as a ground for divorce.
The Court emphasised neither a husband nor a wife has the right to force their spouse to take up or abandon employment based on their personal preferences.
In another progressive judgement, the Kerala High Court has stated that body shaming of a woman by her sister-in-law would prima facie amount to wilful conduct to cause injury to the health of a woman to attract an offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC.
The Challenge of Misuse and False Allegations
Despite the intention to protect victims of cruelty, the law has faced criticism for its potential misuse. The broad and subjective nature of the term “cruelty” has led to frivolous complaints and false accusations, which can cause significant harm to innocent individuals and their families.
Hundreds of thousands of cases related to cruelty, dowry deaths and domestic violence have been reported in the justice system.
Due to the variability and lack of consonance in verdicts, as observed in some of the aforementioned cases, the implementation of laws protecting individuals’ interests in cases of cruelty in matrimonial disputes has proven to be ineffective in several instances.
The ambiguity has led to its misuse with frivolous complaints and false cases being filed substantially. This abuse of a provision of law has been acknowledged by the judiciary in multiple instances.
The Supreme Court has remarked that there is an urgent need for the legislature to relook into the provision.
The recent suicide case of Atul Subhash, a 34-year-old engineer from Bengaluru, due to the alleged harassment by his wife through matrimonial cases, has sparked intense online debates about the misuse of the provisions of cruelty and laws pertaining to Domestic Violence and Dowry Prohibition.
A PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court which seeks directions to the Union to implement the observations made by the Supreme Court in several cases.
In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Court had flagged the abuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the husband and his relatives are unnecessarily dragged into criminal cases alleging domestic cruelty against the wife,
and urged the legislature to make changes. In Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2024) SCC OnLine SC 759, the Supreme Court urged the Parliament to consider amending the counterpart of Section 498A IPC in the new criminal code (Sections 85 and 86 BNS) to prevent its abuse. However, the BNS has retained the provision.
Suggested Read: https://ashwaryasinha.com/trending/understanding-zero-fir-under-bnss/
Calls for Legal Reforms
Several legal institutions, including the Law Commission of India and the Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions, have recommended amendments to Section 498A to make it a compoundable offence, allowing for compromise between parties.
The 243rd Report of the Law Commission of India and the 140th Report of the Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions recommended an amendment to section 498A to make the offence compoundable so that a compromise can be arrived at by the parties with or without the permission of the competent court.
The legislature can also consider making the offence of cruelty bailable. Further, Justice Malimath Committee’s Report on
Reforms of the Criminal Justice System strongly supported the plea to make Section 498A a compoundable offence.
In response to increasing reports of false complaints and mental distress caused by unnecessary accusations, the need for reforms in the legal framework has become urgent.
False complaints not only waste judicial time but also inflict mental cruelty on the accused spouse. The growing number of complaints under Section 498A has highlighted the difficulties in balancing the protection of genuine victims and preventing malicious claims.
Conclusion: Upholding Dignity and Justice
Cruelty within marriage violates an individual’s fundamental right to dignity, liberty, and freedom, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The law must adapt to evolving societal values, ensuring that it provides justice while preventing misuse.
While Section 498A serves as a critical safeguard against domestic abuse, it is crucial to strike a balance between protecting genuine victims and safeguarding against wrongful accusations.
To maintain this balance, reforms should include strengthening procedural safeguards, ensuring swift justice, and providing clarity in the definition of cruelty.
By doing so, the legal system can effectively address the complexities of domestic abuse while preventing its misuse, ensuring that the law fulfils its intended purpose of protecting the rights and dignity of individuals.
For seeking personalised information regarding the legal remedies available contact Ashwarya Sinha at: info@ashwaryasinha.com and office@ashwaryasinha.com
