Latest news with #Section498A
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
Charge of abetment of suicide cannot be invoked on mere allegation: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court has observed that mere allegation of humiliation, harassment or threat, unaccompanied by any incitement or instigation, is not sufficient to invoke the offence of abetment of suicide against a person. The court made the observation while setting aside an order of a Kannur magistrate court allowing to incorporate an offence under Section 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a man in a case registered against him under Section 498A (cruelty by husband) of the IPC. The court observed that the law is clear that to constitute an offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 (Section 108 of BNS), there must be proof of either instigation or conspiracy or intentionally aiding or direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of the offence of suicide. 'No active role' The court said the allegation against the petitioner was that his wife had committed suicide after being handed over a draft agreement on their divorce by him. The court said that witnesses did not state that the petitioner played any active role in either instigating or intentionally aiding the commission of suicide.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
HC: Forced unnatural sex with wife amounts to cruelty under IPC 498A, the section known for dowry cases
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that forcing unnatural sex on a wife, along with physical assault and cruelty, is an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court upheld an FIR registered by a woman against her husband but clarified that the husband cannot be charged under Sections 377 or 376, as marital rape is not recognised as a crime under Indian law. Charges challenged by husband The police had filed charges against the accused under Sections 377 (unnatural sex), 323 (assault), and 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives). The husband contested the FIR in the High Court, arguing that unnatural sex with a wife is not an offence under Indian law. He also claimed that Section 498A did not apply because no dowry harassment was alleged. Court's ruling on cruelty and Section 498A Justice G S Ahluwalia of the Gwalior bench stated, "Committing unnatural sex with a wife against her wishes and on her resistance, assaulting and treating her with physical cruelty will certainly fall within the definition of cruelty. It is not out of place to mention here that demand of dowry is not sine qua non for cruelty." The court explained, "From a plain reading of IPC section 498A, it is clear that any wilful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health, whether mental or physical, to the woman, would amount to cruelty." Marital rape charges quashed, other charges upheld The High Court ruled that unnatural sex with a wife does not constitute an offence under Section 376 (rape) or Section 377 (unnatural sex) of the IPC and quashed those charges. However, it upheld the charges under Section 498A and Section 323 based on specific allegations that the wife was assaulted and treated with physical cruelty when she resisted. Live Events The court concluded, "This court is of the considered opinion that offence under section 498A IPC is made out. Accordingly, this application is partially allowed. Offence under section 377 is hereby quashed. However, FIR in relation to offence under Section 498A and 323 stands." Significance of the ruling This judgement clarifies the legal stance on forced unnatural sex within marriage and confirms that cruelty under Section 498A applies even when dowry demands are not involved. It strengthens protection for women facing physical cruelty in marriage. Economic Times WhatsApp channel )
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Hindustan Times
'Unnatural sex against wife's will is cruelty, but…', rules Madhya Pradesh high court
The Madhya Pradesh high court has ruled that forcing unnatural sex on one's wife, along with physical assault and cruelty, amounts to an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, The Times of India reported on Friday. However, it clarified that the husband cannot be prosecuted under Sections 377 or 376, since 'marital rape' is not a punishable offence under current Indian law. The court upheld the FIR filed by a woman against her husband. The police had earlier charged the husband under Sections 377 (unnatural offences), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives). The husband challenged the FIR, arguing that unnatural sex with one's wife is not a crime under Indian law. He also claimed that Section 498A should not apply, as the complaint did not include any dowry-related allegations. Justice GS Ahluwalia of the Gwalior bench observed in his order that while unnatural sex with one's wife doesn't amount to an offence under IPC sections 376 or 377, it can still constitute cruelty if accompanied by violence and physical abuse. "Committing unnatural sex with a wife against her wishes and on her resistance, assaulting and treating her with physical cruelty will certainly fall within the definition of cruelty. It is not out of place to mention here that demand of dowry is not sine qua non for cruelty." The TOI quoted the judge as saying. The order further explained that, "From a plain reading of IPC section 498A, it is clear that any wilful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health, whether mental or physical, to the woman, would amount to cruelty." While the court quashed the charge under Section 377, it held that there was enough evidence to proceed under other provisions. 'However, since there are specific allegations that whenever the wife resisted the unnatural conduct of petitioner, she was assaulted and treated with physical cruelty, this court is of the opinion that offence under section 498A IPC is made out,' the court said. 'Accordingly, this application is partially allowed. Offence under section 377 is hereby quashed. However, FIR in relation to offence under Section 498A and 323 stands,' it added. In a February ruling, the Chhattisgarh high court held that a husband cannot be prosecuted for rape or unnatural sex for engaging in sexual activity with his adult wife, regardless of her consent, Live Law reported. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, presiding over a single-judge bench, stated that the wife's consent is irrelevant in such cases of sexual or unnatural intercourse within marriage. The case involved an incident from December 11, 2017, in which a man allegedly forced his wife into unnatural sex against her will. Following the act, the woman was hospitalised and later died. In her dying declaration, she accused her husband of forceful sexual intercourse. Doctors later found that she died due to peritonitis and rectal perforation. Despite this, the court noted that under Indian law, sexual acts with a wife who is not under 15 years of age do not qualify as rape. As a result, it ruled that unnatural sex in marriage cannot be treated as a criminal offence. The husband, who had been sentenced to 10 years in prison by a trial court, was ultimately acquitted of all charges.
Time of India
22-05-2025
- Time of India
Doc gets 8-yr jail for abetting wife's suicide
Kanpur: The Additional Sessions Judge of Court Room No- XIV, Kanpur Nagar, on Thursday sentenced Dr Susheel Kumar Verma to eight years of rigorous imprisonment for abetment to suicide and subjecting his wife to cruelty over dowry demands. The court also imposed a total fine of Rs 1.1 lakh on Verma for the offence. Earlier on May 20, the court had pronounced him guilty; however, he failed to appear before the court or file for exemption, prompting the judge to issue a NBW and direct the city police commissioner to produce him by May 22. Appearing before the court on Thursday, Dr Verma was immediately taken into custody. Following arguments on the quantum of sentence, the court awarded him three years of rigorous imprisonment with Rs 10,000 fine under Section 498A, and eight years of rigorous imprisonment with a Rs 1 lakh fine under Section 306. The court ordered that if the convict fails to pay the fine, he would serve an additional three months in jail. Arjun Prasad, a resident of Naini Colony in Prayagraj, had married his daughter Dr Manju Verma to Susheel Kumar Verma, a resident of Kalyanpur in Kanpur, on Jan 29, 2019. The couple were both doctors. Within months of the marriage, the woman was subjected to mental and physical torture for a dowry of Rs 30 lakh, to help the accused purchase a flat. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 2025년 최고의 전설적인 로봇 전투를 경험해보세요 기계 경기장 Undo In May 2019, Arjun received a call from Sudhir Verma, the accused's brother, informing him that Manju had fallen from the 8th floor of a building due to illness. However, upon reaching the spot, Arjun found his daughter dead under suspicious circumstances. TNN Kanpur: The Additional Sessions Judge of Court Room No- XIV, Kanpur Nagar, on Thursday sentenced Dr Susheel Kumar Verma to eight years of rigorous imprisonment for abetment to suicide and subjecting his wife to cruelty over dowry demands. The court also imposed a total fine of Rs 1.1 lakh on Verma for the offence. Earlier on May 20, the court had pronounced him guilty; however, he failed to appear before the court or file for exemption, prompting the judge to issue a NBW and direct the city police commissioner to produce him by May 22. Appearing before the court on Thursday, Dr Verma was immediately taken into custody. Following arguments on the quantum of sentence, the court awarded him three years of rigorous imprisonment with Rs 10,000 fine under Section 498A, and eight years of rigorous imprisonment with a Rs 1 lakh fine under Section 306. The court ordered that if the convict fails to pay the fine, he would serve an additional three months in jail. Arjun Prasad, a resident of Naini Colony in Prayagraj, had married his daughter Dr Manju Verma to Susheel Kumar Verma, a resident of Kalyanpur in Kanpur, on Jan 29, 2019. The couple were both doctors. Within months of the marriage, the woman was subjected to mental and physical torture for a dowry of Rs 30 lakh, to help the accused purchase a flat. In May 2019, Arjun received a call from Sudhir Verma, the accused's brother, informing him that Manju had fallen from the 8th floor of a building due to illness. However, upon reaching the spot, Arjun found his daughter dead under suspicious circumstances. TNN
Time of India
20-05-2025
- Time of India
Divorce case: After 26-year ordeal, husband finally gets relief against 3-year rigorous imprisonment, Supreme Court flags misuse of Section 498A
A husband had to endure 26 years of nightmare including a 20-year High Court battle for prevention of his rigorous imprisonment sentence after his wife filed 498A, dowry and other criminal cases just after two years of their marriage. Ultimately on May 13, 2025, the Supreme Court found that she filed these cases without any proof and used vague allegations hence all the cases were cancelled. The Supreme Court also observed that there is a growing tendency to misuse criminal sections like 498A, Dowry, etc. In this case, a man from Lucknow married a school teacher on February 2, 1997. On December 20, 1999, she filed an FIR in police station alleging that her husband, in-laws and brother-in-law repeatedly tortured her, forcibly made her drink alcohol, pushed her so strongly that she fell, which caused her misscarriage, etc. Based on this FIR, the police took action and then the husband's family appealed against this FIR in court. Also, this FIR was registered on December 20, 1999, but the Divorce petition in court under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was registered on February 6, 1999. This means the FIR was registered by the wife about 10 months after Divorce petition. Play Video Pause Skip Backward Skip Forward Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration 0:00 Loaded : 0% 0:00 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 1x Playback Rate Chapters Chapters Descriptions descriptions off , selected Captions captions settings , opens captions settings dialog captions off , selected Audio Track default , selected Picture-in-Picture Fullscreen This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Elegant New Scooters For Seniors In 2024: The Prices May Surprise You Mobility Scooter | Search Ads Learn More Undo In 2004 the Trial Court sentenced the husband for three years of rigorous imprisonment in total under Section 498A (2 years) and Dowry Protection Act (1 year). The additional session judge in 2004 dismissed the husband's appeal and convicted him of 498A and Dowry act. The High Court in 2018 also rejected his appeal and maintained the conviction of 498A and Dowry Act. The Supreme Court in 2025 overturned all the judgements and acquitted the husband of all the criminal convictions (498A and Dowry). Had the Supreme Court not acquitted the husband; he would have been serving rigorous imprisonment sentence of three years. While acquitting him, the Supreme Court said at this stage their divorce has attained finality, hence any further prosecution of the husband will only be tantamount to an abuse of process of law. Live Events Read below to know more about what circumstances led to the acquittal of this husband after 26 years (in total) legal fight and also know what the Supreme Court said about misuse of criminal laws. How did this case start? According to the order of the Supreme Court dated May 13, 2025, here are the details: February 2, 1997: A man marries a school teacher who resigned from her teaching job after marriage. September 8, 1998, to September 10, 1998: They lived separately for 12 days. September 23, 1998: Father-in-law allegedly threw her out of the house and strongly pushed her which led to her falling down and suffering a misscarriage. December 16, 1999: She and her husband tried for reconciliation through a family counselling centre. February 6, 1999: Wife files Divorce petition in court against the husband. December 20, 1999: She lodged an FIR at women police station against her in-laws, brother-in-law and husband. Trial court hears the case and rules husband guilty of 498A and Dowry Act and sentenced him to 3 years rigorous imprisonment The Trial Court on August 28, 2004, said, the prosecution (wife's lawyer) had failed to prove its case against the Appellant (husband) & the co-accused persons (in-laws), for offences under Section 323 read with Section 34 and Section 506 IPC. The Trial Court acquitted the Appellant for offences under Section 323 r/w 34 and Section 506 IPC and convicted him for offences under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Protection Act, 1961. Accordingly, the Trial Court sentenced the husband as under: Offence(s) under Section Period of sentence Fine imposed 498A IPC, 1860 2 years Rigorous imprisonment Rs 5,000 Section 4 of Dowry Protection Act, 1961 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment Rs 2,000 Source: Supreme Court order on May 13, 2025 The High Court agreed with the order of the Trial Court The High Court in its order dated November 28, 2018, said: 'I have perused the judgment and orders dated 18.11.2004 and 28.08.2004, passed by learned courts below. The learned courts below have considered all aspects of the matter in detail, and I do not find any error of law or perversity in the aforesaid impugned judgment and orders. The instant revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.' Supreme Court said wife's allegations are vague, omnibus and devoid of any material particulars The Supreme Court of India said on May 13, 2025: In the present case, the allegations made by her are vague, omnibus and bereft of any material particulars to substantiate this threshold. Apart from claiming that the husband harassed her for want of dowry, she has not given any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. The allegations in the FIR, and the depositions of the prosecution witnesses suggest that on multiple occasions, the wife was ousted from the matrimonial house, and kicked and punched in the presence of her father, she was repeatedly tormented with dowry demands, and when she was unable to honor them, the husband and her family physically beat her up; whereas she has not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. It is alleged that the Complainant (wife) suffered a miscarriage, as she fell down, when the husband and her family who pushed her out of the house; however, no medical document from any medical institution or hospital or nursery was produced to substantiate the allegations. The Trial Court has rightly held that evidence of the wife 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 her, so as to prove that the miscarriage was a consequence of the physical assault. Supreme Court says wife's FIR does not seem genuine The Supreme Court said: It appears that the Trial Court had passed the order of conviction of the Appellant (husband) under Section 498A IPC & Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961, merely on the possibility that the allegations and the depositions of the physical witness (PW) -1 corroborated by PW2, are true and correct. 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 D.P. Act, 1961, especially to obviate malicious criminal prosecution of family members in matrimonial disputes. In this respect, we also cannot ignore that the FIR dt. December 20, 1999 was registered after the Appellant had filed the Divorce Petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on February 6, 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. Supreme Court says it's distressed about the growing misuse of 498A The Supreme Court said: 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. The term 'cruelty' 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. We cannot ignore the missing specifics in a criminal complaint, which is the premise of invoking criminal machinery of the State. Be that as it may, we are informed that the marriage of the wife has already been dissolved and the divorce decree has attained finality, hence any further prosecution of the husband will only tantamount to an abuse of process of law. Supreme Court final judgement While announcing that the divorce between the husband and wife has attained finality, the Supreme Court announced its verdict. 'We allow the Appeals and the Order dt.14.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 612/2004 convicting the Appellant under Section 498A of IPC & Section 4 of D.P. Act, 1961, is set aside and the Appellant (husband) is acquitted of all the charges.' Tushar Agarwal, Founder & Managing Partner, C.L.A.P. JURIS - Advocates & Solicitors, says: 'By this judgment, SC has come heavily on misuse of section 498A IPC specially in the cases wherein the allegations of cruelty are levelled without any specific date, place of incident etc. This judgment has affirmed that cases under Section 498A should not be entertained if the allegations are absurd and preposterous and lack specificity. This judgment further holds that veracity of allegations against family members and relatives of the husband is to be tested by determining whether they were living with the complainant or not. This judgment will have a significant impact on frivolous complainants which are just filed to harass and extort money.' Arnaz Hathiram, a digital media professional says: "This Supreme Court Judgment reaffirms that our laws are applied on the basis of the interpretation of every Judge that presides over the case. Both the trial court and high court convicted the husband under Section 498-A IPC, but the Supreme Court termed the allegations of wife as vague, where factual dates of incidents were never given. As readers, we will read and forget these cases, while an entire prime lifetime of the man has been wasted. In its earlier July 2005 Judgment Sushil Kumar Sharma V. Union of India, the apex court had termed misuse of Section 498-A IPC as legal terrorism. Sadly, even after more than two decades, the law remains unchanged, leaving the men and their families to suffer at the hands of the system endlessly." What are some key legal takeaways from this judgement? We have asked various legal experts about what might be some key legal takeaways from this judgement. Here's what they said: Ruchita Datta, Partner, D&T Juris: The above judgement passed by the Supreme Court is a significant reiteration of the fact that action taken under Sections 498-A IPC or Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 must serve the purpose of protective legislation for married women. The true intention of the legislature behind the enactment of these provisions was to protect dowry menace and to protect women from cruelty (physical or mental) or atrocities meted out to them by their husbands and his relatives. According to Black's Law dictionary, 'Cruelty' means the intentional and malicious infliction of physical or psychological pain on another. This can involve physical abuse, neglect, or abusive treatment that causes suffering. Everyone is conscious of the fact that for past many decades, the position of women in the society was deplorable not only in India but also across the globe and women in general were subjected to cruelty. To combat this cruelty, the Government in India legislated various central laws to provide a shield to women again heinous acts perpetrated on her by her husband or his relatives and also in order to provide a safe environment within their matrimonial homes. However, it is also witnessed that there are women in society who are deliberately misusing these laws and are using these legislations to serve their ulterior motives by threatening their husband and in-laws, with malicious prosecution under these laws in order to settle their personal vendetta or financial ill motives. Coming to the Judgement in hand, it's obvious that the importance of cogent and credible evidence in any case plays a pivotal part to prove the allegations levelled against the other side. Litigant is helpless if their allegations/claims go unsupported with credible and cogent evidence. According to the Supreme Court, the wife in this case had nowhere adduced appropriate evidence substantiating her allegations of physical and mental torture, which the Court found to be vague. Therefore, by not submitting her medical reports of miscarriage, physical assault etc. wife had herself failed to prove her case. The entire object of Legislature has been so far to protect the women from all forms of physical or mental atrocities. In my opinion, this judgement is a reminder to women that the laws which are made to facilitate their safety must not be made to act as an artillery to destroy the opposite side and also, the allegations alleged must be supported with specifics, concrete and incriminating evidence. The precedent set by this judgement is that above cited sections must be used in a bonafide manner and against the perpetrators who carry out heinous act of cruelties. Also, the precious time of judiciary must not be wasted by not supporting their claims with cogent and credible evidence. Shashank Agarwal, Advocate, Delhi High Court: This judgment by the Supreme Court expressly explains very clearly the unfortunate situation in the society where the couples (mostly, women) misuse the provisions of law under the Domestic Violence Act, Prohibition of Dowry Act, section 498A of the IPC, etc. only to harass the spouse and their family members. The Judgment then goes on to explain the basis elements which need to be assessed while entertaining complaints under these laws. It is hoped that this judgment will lead to some decline in filing of false complaints. Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris: This Supreme Court's ruling is a critical reaffirmation of the need for specificity and evidentiary rigour in prosecutions under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court held that this case does not satisfy the statutory threshold for cruelty and dowry harassment and it should be nipped in the bud taking into consideration of the judgment laid in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana. It must also guard against weaponisation of criminal law in matrimonial disputes. It sets a precedent that mere reiteration of generic grievances or emotional suffering is insufficient. Allegations must include clear, verifiable particulars, such as date, time, and manner of the alleged cruelty. The Court expressed concern over the growing trend of implicating the entire family of the husband, including aged parents and distant relatives, without distinct allegations. It noted that this practice undermines the protective intent of Section 498A and opens the door for its malicious misuse. The judgment highlights that criminal proceedings must not be used as a retaliatory tool in matrimonial discord, especially where a divorce has already attained finality. Here, the FIR was filed after the husband had initiated divorce, which cast doubt on the genuineness of the complaint.
