'Distressed by malicious misuse of dowry laws': Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that it was distressed with the manner in which the dowry laws are being maliciously misused by complainant wives, to rope in aged parents, distant relatives, married sisters living separately, 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," a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said.

The court pointed out that the term “cruelty” used in Section 498A IPC is subject to "rather cruel misuse" by the parties, and cannot be established simpliciter without specific instances, to say the least.

"The tendency of roping these sections, without mentioning any specific dates, time or incident, weakens the case of the prosecutions, and casts serious suspicion on the viability of the version of a complainant," the court said.

The court noted the growing misuse of the law while allowing an appeal filed by Rajesh Chaddha against the Allahabad High Court's judgment of November 14, 2018, which upheld the judgment and order of November 18, 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow.

The sessions court dismissed the appeal against the Chief Judicial Magistrate's 2004 order convicting the appellant under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

In its 18-page judgment on May 13, 2025, Justice Sharma on behalf of the bench said, "In order to meet the threshold of the offences under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the DP Act, the allegations cannot be ambiguous or made in thin air."

The court pointed out that missing specifics in a criminal complaint cannot be ignored, which was the premise of invoking criminal machinery of the State.

The bench referred to SC judgment Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors Vs State of Telangana

& Anr (2025), that stated 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.

The FIR in the case was lodged with the PS Women Police Station, Lucknow under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC & Sections 3 & 4 of the DP Act, on the basis of a complaint of December 20, 1999 filed by the complainant wife, against the appellant husband and her in-laws alleging mental and physical torture for not bringing enough dowry.

"Although one cannot deny the emotional or mental torture that the complainant may have undergone in the marriage, however, a cursory or plausible view cannot be conclusive proof to determine the guilt of an individual under Section 498A & Section 4 of the DP Act, especially to obviate malicious criminal prosecution of family members in matrimonial disputes," the bench said.

The marriage of the appellant with the complainant, Mala Chaddha took place on February 12, 1997.

The complainant wife alleged her husband and parents-in-law were constantly unhappy and dissatisfied, and subjected her to constant taunts, and inflicted upon her physical and mental atrocities. It was alleged that the appellant husband and her in-laws forced the complainant to consume milk mixed with some narcotic or alcoholic substances and forced her to attend parties with his friends, where alcohol was served, and if she refused, they would humiliate her.

The complainant who used to work as a teacher claimed she was thrown out of the matrimonial home and beaten up resulting in miscarriage.

Examining the appeal, the bench said, in the present case, the allegations made by the complainant are vague, omnibus and bereft of any material particulars to substantiate the 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, the court noted.

The bench found that apart from the statements of the complainant and her father, there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations of harassment and acts of cruelty within the scope of Section 498A of IPC, and Section 4 of the DP Act, 1961.

"For this reason, we find merit in the submission of the counsel for the appellant, and are of the considered view that there is no material on record to establish the allegations of hurt or miscarriage, and of hurt and criminal intimidation in terms of Section 323 r/w 34 and Section 506 IPC respectively," the bench said.

The court opined that the trial court has rightly held that evidence of the complainant is the only strong evidence that she sustained injuries on various parts of her body due to the physical assault by the accused persons and that there was no medical examination conducted by the complainant so as to prove that the miscarriage was a consequence of the physical assault.

The court felt the trial court passed the order of conviction of the appellant under Section 498A IPC & Section 4 of the DP Act, merely on the possibility that the allegations and the depositions of the complainant corroborated by her father, are true and correct.

The bench said it also cannot be ignored that the FIR of December 20, 1999 was registered after the appellant had filed the divorce petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on February 06, 1999.

"In consideration thereof and that the complainant had cohabited with the appellant only for a period of about a year, it appears that the FIR registered by the complainant was not genuine," it said.

The court found nothing incriminatory against the appellant to sustain a conviction under Section 498A IPC or Section 4 of the DP Act.

"Although we do not agree with the submission on behalf of the appellant that the High Court's order was passed in absentia, however, the High Court was well within its revisionary powers to discern whether an FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom were sustainable. In all certainty, it could have saved 6 years’ worth of time for the appellant, who has endured litigation for over 20 years as of today," the bench said.

Having been informed that the marriage of the appellant has already been dissolved and the divorce decree has attained finality, the bench held, hence any further prosecution of the appellant would only tantamount to an abuse of the process of law.