Another misuse of domestic violence law: Supreme Court warns wife for filling false FIR under section 498A of IPC and the Dowry Act

The Supreme Court of India recently criticised a woman who abused the law meant to offer protection to women who are victim of domestic violence. She filed a misleading case under Section 498A of IPC and under Dowry Act against her husband and in-laws. As per the case history presented in the court, she filed her matrimonial home multiple times and at one such occasions police found her living in a companionship of another man, while still being officially married. She was taken back by her husband only after she gave a written assurance.

She wrote a letter on November 11, 2021, to the Police admitting that she had left her matrimonial house after quarrelling with her husband because of a person with whom she was talking over the phone for the past ten days continuously. She also stated in that letter to the Police that she would not repeat such acts in future.

However, she did not stop these acts and as per the Husband’s statement to the court, she ran away from home again without informing him, leaving their minor kids in the home.

Fed up with this repeated behaviour, her husband sent a legal notice to her for a mutual divorce. However, this didnt go down well with his wife, as instead of accepting or replying to this notice, she filed a domestic violence (498A) and dowry case against him, and every member of his family. The police registered an FIR based on these allegations. Had the High Court not intervened, the husband and his family would have been arrested. The High Court asked police not to arrest them until the charge sheet is filed. This is because the honourable high court opined that the concerned matrimonial dispute does not warrant a custodial interrogation of the accused.

Matrimonial disputes and abuse of women friendly laws have come under public scrutiny after the recent suicide case of Atul Subhash. Any abuse of such protective laws does harm to the cause of real victims.

Supreme Court’s investigation finds FIR was lodged to take revenge on husband

The Supreme Court said the following:

• A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the wife are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that the husband harassed her, and that appellant Nos. 2 to 6 (husband’s family) instigated him to do so, she has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.
• Losing hope in the marriage, he issued a legal notice to her seeking divorce by mutual consent on 13.12.2021. Instead of responding to the said legal notice issued by him, she lodged the present FIR 82 of 2022 on 01.02.2022.
• Given the facts of this case and in view of the timing and context of the FIR, we find that she left the matrimonial house on 03.10.2021 after quarrelling with him with respect to her interactions with a third person in their marriage. Later she came back to her matrimonial house assuring to have a cordial relationship with him. However, she again left the matrimonial house. When he issued a legal notice seeking divorce on 13.12.2021, the present FIR came to be lodged on 01.02.2022 by her. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the FIR filed by her is not a genuine complaint rather it is a retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with him and his family members.
• She has not contested the present case either before the High Court or Supreme Court. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that she has not only deserted him but has also abandoned her two children as well, who are now in the care and custody of him. The counsel for her has specifically submitted that she has shown no inclination to re-establish any relationship with her children.
• In so far as his family members are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason.

Supreme Court finds wife abused legal process of section 498A

The Supreme Court said the following:

“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 has 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.

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.”

Permanent alimony of Rs 500 crore sought by wife from US based husband; SC grants Rs 12 crore and warns against misuse of 498A

Supreme Court’s refers to section 482 which deals with abuse of legal process

The Supreme Court of India referred to the precedent set by the case: State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC 335. In this case the Honourable court formulated parameters under which the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC could be exercised. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of 1973 gives the Court the power to prevent the abuse of the legal process among other things. The Supreme Court said:

● “Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
● In the instant case, the allegations in the FIR are under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act.”

The Supreme Court, while criticising the wife for abusing the law, cancelled the FIR and Dowry case against the husband and his family and allowed the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court made an error in not quashing the FIR.

Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate and Former Additional Solicitor General of lndia (ASG), says, "Justice Nagaratna & Justice Kotiswar Singh, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana, in my view, have penned a timely judgment, which comes as a balm to the pains of the sacred institution of marriage in our country, which now for quite some time is struggling to maintain its health. The Constitutional Courts across the country, despite the Supreme Court ruling in Bhajan Lal case, have been a bit conservative in applying its principle in Section 498 A IPC cases, may be with good intention of observing caution as the issue centrally relates to women.

But with the growing misuse, which now puts the whole family into the cage, time has come to deal with these cases more pragmatically. This judgment reaffirms that vague, broad, and general allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

The Hon’ble Court revisited the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal for quashing of FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, which include, inter alia, where allegations made in the FIR or the complaint prima facie do not make out a case against the accused and where the criminal proceedings are instituted to settle personal scores and grudges. It was observed by the Hon’ble Court that allegations of harassment made in the FIR were general and vague without providing details like time, place, manner, and specific instances of harassment; that the family members of the husband did not even reside at the matrimonial house; and that the FIR filed by the wife was a counterblast to the legal notice seeking divorce sent by the husband.

Thus, the Hon’ble Court held that with the growing tendency to misuse provisions such as Section 498A of the IPC as a tool of personal vendetta by a wife, the vague, general and omnibus allegations attributed against the husband and his family must be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection. However, the Court clarified that its observations aimed to prevent the misuse of legal provisions in frivolous complaints and should not be interpreted as discouraging genuine claims by women who have suffered cruelty under Section 498A IPC from filing complaints."

Tushar Kumar, Advocate, Supreme Court of India, says, "This Supreme Court judgment sets a critical precedent concerning the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in matrimonial disputes. The Court emphasized the need for courts to carefully scrutinize allegations under Section 498A, which often lack specificity and are used as a tool for personal vendetta, rather than genuine claims of cruelty or dowry harassment. The ruling acknowledges a growing trend of such misuse, where vague or omnibus accusations are levied to exert leverage in family disputes, particularly in retaliation to divorce proceedings. The judgment highlights that allegations must be detailed, substantiated with evidence, and consistent with the facts, especially when the context suggests ulterior motives, such as a counterblast to a divorce notice. This decision reinforces that legal provisions meant to protect victims should not be used to harass or malign innocent individuals, especially when they have no direct involvement in the alleged acts of cruelty.

Furthermore, the judgment highlights the importance of protecting innocent family members from wrongful prosecution, particularly when they are wrongly implicated in baseless claims without any evidence linking them to the alleged acts. The Court quashed the FIR against the husband’s family members, who resided in different cities and were unrelated to the incidents of alleged harassment. The ruling reflects the Court’s role in safeguarding the judicial system from unnecessary overburdening by meritless cases. The judgment sets a balanced approach, ensuring that genuine victims of domestic abuse are protected while preventing the misuse of legal provisions like Section 498A for personal retribution. It reinforces the judiciary’s duty to act as a safeguard against frivolous litigation and ensures that legal processes are not exploited for personal gain. The ruling serves as an important reminder of the need for judicial discretion and scrutiny, fostering fairness, efficiency, and justice in matrimonial disputes."

"This judgment once again brings light to the fact of how false cases are being filed against Husbands and their respective family members under 498 A of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. In the matter of State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, the courts went deeper into the code and emphasised on 7 categories of cases wherein such powers should be exercised. This case falls under the 7th category wherein proceedings have been initiated with mala-fide intention with a motive to harass the husband and his family. Subsequent thereto, Courts have also felt that the Courts must be ultra cautious while dealing with cases wherein allegations such as harassments etc have been made against the husband and his relative. The Hon’ble Court has upheld the principle of protecting individuals from unwanted legal harassment and prolonged emotional and financial strain that litigation imposes on families. This judgment will likely serve as a benchmark for similar cases, urging courts to carefully evaluate the genuineness of complaints in matrimonial conflicts while balancing the need to protect the aggrieved party’s rights. It also highlights the judiciary’s proactive role in preventing misuse of laws intended to safeguard women," says Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris LLP.

"This Supreme Court judgment, authored by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, quashing the FIR under Section 498A IPC (now Sections 85 and 86 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita) and the Dowry Prohibition Act, establishes a critical precedent against the misuse of legal provisions in matrimonial disputes. The Court emphasized that vague and retaliatory allegations lacking substantive evidence cannot justify criminal prosecution. It reiterated the need to protect innocent individuals, including extended family members, from unwarranted harassment while preserving the intent of these laws to safeguard genuine victims of cruelty and dowry demands.

The judgment gains urgency in light of a recent, separate case where a husband tragically died by suicide after being falsely accused by his wife. This incident underscores the severe consequences of weaponizing legal safeguards for personal vendettas. By promoting judicial scrutiny and accountability, this decision acts as a deterrent against misuse while ensuring fairness and protecting the sanctity of matrimonial laws," says Rishabh Gandhi, Founder, Rishabh Gandhi and Advocates.