Parental Alienation and Section 498A: When Justice for One Becomes Trauma for Another

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was introduced in 1983 to address cruelty against married women by their husbands or relatives. It was designed as a legal shield to protect women from harassment, particularly related to dowry, and to deter domestic violence within the institution of marriage.

Under this provision, any wilful conduct by the husband or his relatives that is likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury to her life or health, mental or physical, is punishable with imprisonment. The provision is non-bailable, cognizable and compoundable only with the court’s permission. While its intent was to curb abuse, its misuse and overreach in some instances have raised important concerns.

One significant yet less discussed fallout of 498A arrests is the phenomenon of parental alienation. When a husband is arrested soon after the filing of an FIR, often without a preliminary inquiry, it sets off a chain of events that directly affects the child, especially when custody disputes follow. The child witnesses not only the breakdown of the parental relationship but also the criminalisation of one parent, typically the father

In such cases, the mother often becomes the sole custodial parent during and after litigation. This physical and emotional separation from the father, combined with the stigma of arrest, frequently leads to the child being alienated from him. Over time, the child’s perception is shaped not through judicial findings but through the emotional atmosphere created by conflict and litigation.

Parental alienation is a psychological condition in which a child becomes estranged from one parent as a result of psychological manipulation by the other. In Indian courts, while there is growing awareness of this issue, it is rarely addressed explicitly in family law proceedings. Instead, courts focus on the “best interests of the child” under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, without always investigating the circumstances that may lead to alienation.

While the judiciary has occasionally acknowledged the potential misuse of Section 498A, it has also recognised the need to uphold the spirit of the law to protect women from genuine abuse. In Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017), the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent misuse, including the formation of Family Welfare Committees to scrutinise complaints before arrests are made. Though some of those guidelines were diluted in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (2018), the Court recently revived a modified version of such safeguards through its order on July 22, 2025, upholding the Allahabad High Court’s 2022 directives.

These revived directives state that in cases under Section 498A, no arrest should be made during the first two months after the FIR unless there are circumstances involving physical injury, dowry death, or protection under the Domestic Violence Act. A Family Welfare Committee, comprising neutral individuals, is to assess the case and submit a report before any coercive action is taken.

This interim period becomes crucial not just for preventing unwarranted arrests, but also for protecting the child’s relationship with both parents. It offers an opportunity for de-escalation, dialogue, and possibly even resolution. More importantly, it helps prevent the irreversible emotional damage that can occur when a child witnesses a parent being taken into custody at the start of a conflict.

Courts have often reiterated that child custody is not a matter of legal entitlement but of welfare and care. In Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009), the Supreme Court held that custody should always serve the best interests of the child, not the convenience or preference of the parents.

When one parent is criminally accused at an early stage, often without trial or conviction, it is imperative that the courts consider the psychological impact on the child before restricting contact. Judicial discretion must ensure that false accusations do not lead to permanent damage in the parent-child relationship.

Section 498A remains a vital tool for protecting women. But its application must also consider the invisible victims in these cases, children who lose access to a parent not because of proven guilt, but because of process. The law must protect the vulnerable without creating new forms of vulnerability.