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

Even as I sit to write on misuse of Section 498A IPC, news is pouring in all newspapers and so also in news channels and in media that Atul Subhash who was a 34-year-old techie and automobile company senior executive committed suicide and in his suicide note wrote that he took the extreme step as his wife and in-laws demanded Rs 3 crore to withdraw the cases against him and Rs 30 lakhs to grant visitation rights to see his son and was told repeatedly to either pay or to die if he could not pay the money or pay for the visitation rights. He also wrote that his wife was already receiving Rs 40,000 every month as maintenance despite working at Accenture and earning her own money and yet she demanded Rs 2-4 lakhs more. He also wrote that the tax I pay on my salary is helping the police and the legal system harass me and my family. Nothing on earth can be more unfortunate than this that this is the punishment that a men gets in India for earning well from society! Yet we see that no safeguards most disgracefully in our laws inserted for men not even in the revised penal laws! Most disgusting indeed!

It is definitely a matter of grave concern for our society that in recent last few years, we have been noticing time and again so many High Courts in different States and even Supreme Court also expressing its most deepest concerns over the growing tendency of misuse of Section 498A by women to implicate not only her husband but also his entire family also which our lawmakers must take note of and make necessary amendments to check the rampant abuse of penal laws pertaining to woman with impunity! A full stop has to be put now by punishing woman with not less than seven years imprisonment upto 14 years and a heavy fine also if the complaint turns out to be false and if a men commits suicide or any of his family members then life imprisonment or death for women! This brazen, baseless and blind misuse of penal laws against husband and his relatives with impunity has to be checked, caught, combated and crushed!

Coming to this present case, it must be disclosed that while quashing a Section 498-A IPC (cruelty) case that was levelled against a husband and in-laws of wife, the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others vs State of Telangana & Another in Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 16239 of 2024 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024 INSC 953 that was pronounced as recently as on December 10, 2024 has again cautioned most strongly about the growing most reprehensible and nefarious tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of matrimonial discord. This is what is most utterly disgusting which calls for strictest punishment to women and her relatives who conspired to frame false charges against husband and his relatives! It is thus entirely in the fitness of things that the Apex Court was most unsparing in criticizing the most lethal growing tendency to most brazenly misuse provisions like Section 498-A IPC as a most powerful tool for unleashing personal vendetta against not only the husband but also his entire family.

By all accounts, there must be zero tolerance for such most despicable acts which we don't see happening due to which she escapes scot free mostly or with very light reprimand mostly which makes me hang my head in shame! What definitely cannot be afforded to go unnoticed is that in November 2024 also in Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab & Anr in Neutral Citation : 2024 INSC 896 that was pronounced just recently on November 26, 2024, the Apex Court Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr Justice CT Ravikumar and Hon'ble Mr Justice Rajesh Bindal had expressed a word of caution to the Courts as an alarmbell to ensure that the distant relatives of a husband among others are not unnecessarily implicated in criminal cases filed at the instance of a wife alleging domestic cruelty. No denying it!

Suffice it to say, the rot runs deep and far and a major surgery is needed in our penal laws and not just bandaid cure as we see in the revised penal laws to stem the most worst rot that has permeated deep in our society cutting across all different states and different regions! Most worryingly, in this leading case, we see that the Bench comprising of Hon'ble Justices Ms BV Nagarathna and Mr N Kotiswar Singh minced absolutely just no words whatsoever to state unequivocally 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. It must be noted that the Apex Court heard the criminal appeal that had been 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.

While denouncing and deprecating wife, the top court maintained 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. It is most heartening to note that the top court did not shy away from holding resoundingly that the Telangana High Court committed a grave error in not quashing the FIR against the appellants, thus the pending case against the appellants was quashed. The appeal was accordingly allowed. Very rightly so! The top court rightly pointed out that courts must identify instances of over implication of persons in cases and avert undue suffering to them. It is imperative that on this new Judges must be taught on this new cult of brazen misuse of penal laws as potential weapons by women and her relatives that has made deep inroads! The top court must take suo motu cognizance of this abuse of penal laws against men for extortion and other huge demands made from women which have no justification inspite of themselves earning in many cases as we see most recently in case of suicide of Atul Subhash!

At the very outset, this noteworthy judgment authored by Hon'ble Ms Justice BV Nagarathna who is herself a woman for a Bench of Apex Court comprising of herself and Hon'ble Mr Justice N Kotiswar Singh sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, "Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana in Criminal Petition No.1479 of 2022 refusing to quash the criminal proceedings in FIR No.82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda against the appellant Nos.1 to 6 herein (collectively referred as "appellants") under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC", for short) and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ("Dowry Act", for short), the appellants have preferred this appeal."

Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 28 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, "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."

For clarity, the Bench clarifies in para 29 maintaining that, "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."

Most remarkably, the Bench propounds in para 32 holding that, "We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants."

Do note, the Bench notes in para 18 that, "A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 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."

Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 19 that, "Further, the record reveals that respondent No.2 on 03.10.2021 left the matrimonial house leading appellant No.1 to file a police complaint on 05.10.2021. When the police officials traced her, respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub Division requesting to close the complaint made by appellant No.1. In the said letter, respondent No.2 admitted that she left her matrimonial house after quarrelling with appellant No.1 as she was talking to a person by name Govindan over the phone for the past ten days continuously. She further admitted that appellant No.1 was taking good care of her. She also stated that she will not engage in such actions in future. Despite that, in 2021 itself, respondent No.2 once again left the matrimonial house leaving appellant No.1 and also her minor children."

Do further note, the Bench notes in para 20 that, "Losing hope in the marriage, appellant No.1 issued a legal notice to respondent No.1 seeking divorce by mutual consent on 13.12.2021. Instead of responding to the said legal notice issued by appellant No.1, respondent No.2 lodged the present FIR 82 of 2022 on 01.02.2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act."

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 21 that, "Given the facts of this case and in view of the timing and context of the FIR, we find that respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house on 03.10.2021 after quarrelling with appellant No.1 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 appellant No.1. However, she again left the matrimonial house. When appellant No.1 issued a legal notice seeking divorce on 13.12.2021, the present FIR came to be lodged on 01.02.2022 by respondent No.2. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the FIR filed by respondent No. 2 is not a genuine complaint rather it is a retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with appellant No. 1 and his family members."

It cannot be lost on us that the Bench notes in para 22 that, "Learned counsel for respondent No.1 State contended that a prima facie case was made out against the appellants for harassing respondent No.2 and demanding dowry from her. However, we observe that the allegations made by respondent No.2 in the FIR seem to be motivated by a desire for retribution rather than a legitimate grievance. Further, the allegations attributed against the appellants herein are vague and omnibus."

Quite significantly, the Bench points out in para 23 that, "Respondent No.2 has not contested the present case either before the High Court or this Court. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that respondent No. 2 has not only deserted appellant No. 1 but has also abandoned her two children as well, who are now in the care and custody of appellant No.1. The counsel for the appellants has specifically submitted that respondent No.2 has shown no inclination to re-establish any relationship with her children."

It would be worthwhile to note that the Bench notes in para 24 that, "Insofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 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. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively."

Most forthrightly, the Bench mandates in para 25 holding that, "A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them."

It would be instructive to note that the Bench points out in para 26 that, "In fact, in the instant case, the first appellant and his wife i.e. the second respondent herein resided at Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where he was working in Southern Railways. They were married in the year 2015 and soon thereafter in the years 2016 and 2017, the second respondent gave birth to two children. Therefore, it cannot be believed that there was any harassment for dowry during the said period or that there was any matrimonial discord. Further, the second respondent in response to the missing complaint filed by the first appellant herein on 05.10.2021 addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub Division requesting for closure of the said complaint as she had stated that she had left the matrimonial home on her own accord owing to a quarrel with the appellant No.1 because of one Govindan with whom the second respondent was in contact over telephone for a period of ten days. She had also admitted that she would not repeat such acts in future. In the above conspectus of facts, we find that the allegations of the second respondent against the appellants herein are too far-fetched and are not believable."

It cannot be lost on us that the Bench observes in para 27 that, "We find that the High Court noted that there were also allegations against respondent No.2 and matrimonial disputes are pending between the parties. Therefore, the High Court came to the conclusion that custodial interrogation of the appellants was not necessary and protected the personal liberty of the appellants directing the Investigation Officer not to arrest the appellants till the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet. Albeit the said findings and observations, the High Court ultimately refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellants."

While citing the relevant case law, the Bench notes in para 30 that, "In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as follows:

"12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts.""

While citing yet another relevant case law, the Bench notes in para 31 that, "Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection."

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 33 that, "We, accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 16.02.2022 in Criminal Petition No.1479 of 2022 filed under Section 482 CrPC. The Criminal Petition No.1479 of 2022 under Section 482 of CrPC shall accordingly stand allowed. FIR No.82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act against appellant Nos.1 to 6, charge-sheet dated 03.06.2022 filed in the Court of 1st Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad and the trial pending in the Court of 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri against the appellants herein shall accordingly stand quashed."

All told, it is high time and Centre must immediately step into action and make huge and meaningful changes in our penal laws to ensure that those women who tend to misuse women safety laws as potential weapons to destroy not only the house of husband but also their ownselves and their family are sent behind bars for 7 years minimum to 14 years and in exceptional cases to life term or death also if a men or any of his family member commits suicide! This misuse of penal laws even in the revised penal laws must be nipped in the bud! The earlier this is done, the better it shall be for the safety of men and their family who too are a part of India just like women! There can be definitely no more any dilly dallying on it any longer as it brooks no more delay anymore now! No denying or disputing it! It would not tantamount to an exaggeration if I say that Supreme Court too now must step into action as it is the last bastion of hope for justice and Centre even in revised penal laws has failed to do anything on it which is responsible for so many men killing themselves in despair! The top court must remember the age old dictum which is a settled proposition of law that tolerance of injustice in any form is a threat to justice in all forms which has to be certainly nipped in the bud at the earliest!