Supreme Court cautions against misuse of Section 498A IPC for unleashing personal vendetta

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sounded a note of caution against 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.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh said making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm-twisting tactics by a wife and her family.

The court allowed an appeal by Dara Lakshmi Narayana against five of his family members against Telangana High Court's judgment of February 16, 2024, declining to quash an FIR lodged by his wife for alleged dowry harassment.

The bench noted the FIR was lodged as a counterblast to the notice of divorce for mutual consent as the wife previously left the matrimonial home twice and found to be living with another man. There were no specific allegations against the husband's family members, who lived in different cities.

The FIR was lodged with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against husband and his family members, it said.

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, the bench said.

"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," the bench said.

The court, however, clarified it was not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding.

In the case, the court noted the FIR was not a genuine complaint rather it is a retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with husband and his family members.

It said the FIR seems 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, it said.

The court noted the husband's relatives had no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason.

"They never resided with the couple and their children," the bench said.

The court held 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.

"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," the bench said.

The bench said the 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," the bench said.

The 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, the bench said.