S.498A Misuse Undermines Protective Law, Targets Kin Unfairly: SC

The Supreme Court in its judgment dated May 13, 2025, observed that the misuse of Section 498A IPC and dowry laws to implicate distant and elderly in-laws undermines the purpose of protective legislation.

A Division Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while allowing the appeal preferred by the appellant-husband, observed,

“We are distressed with the manner, the offences under Section 498A IPC, and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 are being maliciously roped in by Complainant wives, insofar as aged parents, distant relatives, married sisters living separately, are arrayed as accused, in matrimonial matters. This growing tendency to append every relative of the husband, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations made by the Complainant wife or her family members, and vitiates the very objective of a protective legislation.”

The appeals were filed against order dated 14.11.2018 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 612 of 2004 filed against the judgment and order dated 18.11.2004 passed by the ASJ, Lucknow whereby Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2004 filed by the appellant was dismissed and the conviction under S. 498A of the Penal Code, 1860 and S.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was upheld.

It was alleged that the appellant-husband and the woman’s in-laws forced her to consume milk mixed with some narcotic/alcoholic substances, and forced upon her to attend parties with his friends, where alcohol was served, and if the complainant refused, the appellant and his family would humiliate her.

As per the complainant, she made several requests for reconciliation including efforts through family counselling centre till 16.12.1999, but all in vain, as a consequence registered the complaint dated 20.12.1999 against the Appellant and his family.

Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the allegations under Section 498A and Section 4 of the DP Act, 1961, were unsustainable as there was no independent evidence on behalf of the prosecution and the entire case rested upon deposition of the father of the complainant and complainant herself.

“… allegations made by the Complainant are vague, omnibus and bereft of any material particulars to substantiate this threshold. Apart from claiming that Appellant husband harassed her for want of dowry, the Complainant has not given any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment”, Court added.

Case Title: Rajesh Chaddha v. State of UP