by Jeremy D. Morley

The Supreme Court of India has issued another significant ruling concerning the notorious Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2025 INSC 671]. 

The Penal Code has recently been renamed as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Section 498A is now renumbered as Sections 85 and 86 of the renamed statute.

Husbands of Indian origin living in or outside India are generally extremely well aware of the dangerous consequences to themselves and their families of being accused by their wives of conduct contrary to Section 498A. They themselves are not able to pursue similar tactics against their wives because the statutes provide such rights only to wives.

Criminal complaints under this and related provisions of India criminal law have for decades often been used by wives to blackmail their husbands into relinquishing their children, their assets or both.

The history of the Chaddha case, spanning 26 years, is astonishing, but the final outcome seems to be sensible.

The parties married in 1998. They lived together for only 12 days. In 1999, the husband brought a case in India for divorce and the wife responded in the same year by filing criminal charges in India against him and his parents under Section 498A. She also asserted claims under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which prohibits the giving or taking of a dowry, Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for “voluntarily causing hurt” and Section 34 of the Penal Code concerning criminal acts done by several people.

In her complaint, the wife alleged an array of abusive conduct, including forced resignation from a teaching position, the appropriation of her salary by her in-laws, forced consumption of narcotics, forced attendance at alcohol-laden parties, and physical violence culminating in a miscarriage. Her claims were not supported by supportive evidence.

Five years later, in 2004, a Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the claim of having voluntarily caused hurt because the wife had not produced any medical evidence or injury report. However, the magistrate convicted the father under both Section 498A and the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to two years of “rigorous imprisonment,” together with a fine. The father appealed and his appeal was denied in the same year.

The father then appealed to the Allahabad High Court but that appeal was not decided until 2018. The High Court peremptorily upheld the lower courts' rulings but provided no analysis of the case.

The father then appealed to the Supreme Court of India which did not issue a decision for a further 6½ years.

The Supreme Court acquitted the father.  It held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process. It lambasted the High Court's decision but, shockingly, made no reference to the High Court having sat on the case for 14 years. Nor did the Supreme Court explain why its decision was not rendered for another 6½ years.

Specifically, the Supreme Court held that:

·       The original conviction was apparently based “merely on the possibility” that the allegations were true, but “a cursory or plausible view cannot be conclusive proof.”

·        It appeared that the wife may have engaged in “malicious criminal prosecution of family members,” especially because she filed her complaint only after the husband had initiated his divorce case.

·       The High Court failed to examine the correctness of the trial court's decision, especially because the court record revealed nothing incriminatory against the father.

·       If the High Court had acted properly, it would in all certainty, “have saved 6 years' worth of time for the Appellant, who has endured litigation for over 20 years as of today.”

·       “Notwithstanding the merits of the case, 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.

·       It repeated the following observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, 2024 INSC 953:

“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 (2025) 3 SCC 735.”

Lest it be anticipated that the abuse of Section 498A will now stop because of these cases, it must be noted that the Indian Supreme Court has issued similar statements for the past 20 years, without success. For example,

·       In 2005, the Indian Supreme Court described the abuse of Section 498A by wives as “a new legal terrorism” and insisted that 498A “is intended to be used a shield and not assassins' weapon.”  Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3100. 

·       In 2010, the Supreme Court stated that “most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations,” leading to “insurmountable harassment, agony and pain” to the accused and his close relations and causing “enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society.” The Supreme Court demanded corrective action by the India Legislature. Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667. 

·       And in 2014 the Supreme Court of India stated that Section 498A has “a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. 

Accordingly, the use of Section 498A and related gender-based criminal laws in India remains a potent and chilling weapon that is often used by wives in India against their husbands in or outside of India and their husbands' families.