Latest news with #Section498A
Hindustan Times
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Need to rethink cooling off period before arrest in family-related cases
The Supreme Court (SC), recently, while disposing of a transfer petition in Shivangi Bansal versus Sahib Bansal and quashing a number of litigations related to a case of cruelty for dowry under section 498A of the IPC, said that 'the guidelines framed by the High Court of Allahabad in the impugned judgment dated 13.06.2022 … vide paras 32 to 38, with regard to 'Constitution of Family Welfare Committees for safeguards regarding misuse of Section 498A, IPC shall remain in effect and be implemented by the appropriate authorities.' The SC did not discuss or analyse any of the above-mentioned guidelines in its judgment. These guidelines specifically direct the police authorities to comply with the mandatory cooling-period of two months before effecting arrest of the accused persons, and constitution and duties of the Family Welfare Committees (FWCs) in some cases registered under Section 498A of the IPC. The Supreme Court (ANI) The directions by the two-Judge Bench of the SC are in direct contravention to the judgment of the three-Judge Bench of the SC in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another versus Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others (2018) which overruled its own judgment in Rajesh Sharma and others versus State of U.P. and another (2017) and held that 'the directions pertaining to constitution of a (Family Welfare) Committee and conferment of power on the said Committee is erroneous.' The SC in Rajesh (supra) had issued some directions to prevent the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC. These directions included formation of one or more Family Welfare Committees in districts which would look into every complaint under Section 498A. The FWC shall look into such a complaint, may interact with the parties and submit a report to the authority (police or the magistrate as the case may be) within one month. No arrest shall normally be effected by the police till report of the committee is received. The FWC shall be constituted by the District Legal Service Authorities (DSLAs) and members could be out of para legal volunteers/social workers/retired persons/wives of working officers/other suitable and willing citizens. The Court also said that in cases where settlement is reached, the district and session judge or any other senior judicial officer nominated by him to dispose of the proceedings including closing of the criminal case. The SC in Social Action Forum (supra) case held that such directions could not be issued by the method of interpretation of the CrPC. The 'constitution of the FWCs by the DSLAs' and 'the prescription of duties of the Committees and further action … are beyond the Code and the same does not really flow from any provision of the Code.' The Court clarified that the third agency had nothing to do with the Code and directions pertaining to no arrest till the receipt of the report from the Committee were out of scope of the Code. Since a criminal proceeding which is not compoundable can be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, 'the directions to settle a case after it is registered is not a correct expression of law' the Court held. Despite Rajesh (supra) being overruled by the SC in September 2018, the High Court of Allahabad issued similar directions as in the Rajesh case. Moreover, it directed that no arrest or police action to nab the named accused persons shall be made after lodging of the FIR or complaints without concluding the 'cooling period' which is two months from the lodging of the FIR or the complaint. During this period, the matter would be immediately referred to Family Welfare Committee in each district. All cases of 498A IPC 'with, no injury 307 and other sections of the IPC in which the imprisonment is less than 10 years' are required to be transmitted to the FWC, the High Court said. Thus, the High Court not only enhanced the period of 'no arrest' to two months but also enlarged the scope of inquiry into complaints as in Rajesh, the SC had said that 'these directions will not apply to the offences involving tangible physical injuries or death'. Thus, the directions issued by the SC in Shivangi Bansal (supra) case are in contravention to the SC judgment in Social Action Forum case. It is also a settled principle of law that misuse of law by itself cannot be a ground to repeal a penal provision or take away its teeth. With regard to arrest, the CrPC and BNSS clearly state that the police shall record reasons for effecting arrest. The arrest should not be effected in a routine manner without doing some investigation, as to the genuineness of a complaint. Differentiating between the power to arrest and justification for the exercise of it, the SC in Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar and another (2014) held that the reasons and materials which necessitate arrest must be forwarded to the magistrate. In Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh and others (2014), the Constitution Bench of the SC permitted to conduct preliminary inquiry in cases of matrimonial disputes to ascertain whether the complaint reveals any cognisable offence. The purpose is to see that there is no over implication of accused persons and the law abused. The Law Commission of India in its 243rd report recommended to make the offence under Section 498A, compoundable with the permission of court. But the Central Government did not make any changes in the provisions related to cruelty. Section 85 of the BNS is pari materia to Section 498A of the IPC. This article is authored by RK Vij, former IPS officer.
India Today
a day ago
- Entertainment
- India Today
Man celebrates divorce with ‘Zero Alimony' cake. Reddit post goes viral
A Reddit user's post about their friend winning a divorce battle without paying a penny in alimony has sparked debate online, with several users praising his legal fight and others questioning the celebration of "zero maintenance".In a viral post shared on Reddit's 'r/IndiaFlex', a user recounted how their friend handled a turbulent divorce by representing himself in court, and celebrated the outcome with a cake that read: "Happily Divorced With 0 Alimony Maintenance."advertisementThe Reddit user claimed that the man was hit with three cases from his wife: Section 498A (dowry harassment), Domestic Violence, and CrPC 125 (maintenance). 'He didn't hire a lawyer. He represented himself and got both the DV and maintenance dismissed. No maintenance was granted,' the post read. The user then detailed how the settlement demands dropped over time. 'Her initial demand was Rs 70 lakh. That came down to Rs 35 lakh within a year. He laughed during mediation, and she dropped it to Rs 30 lakh. He still didn't budge, and countered with Rs 1 lakh,' they the man's estranged wife agreed to a mutual consent divorce with zero alimony. 'He rejected every draft MoU her side proposed, wrote his own, filed the MCD petition, and got divorced on his own terms,' the Reddit user post also mentioned that the man later threw a grand party to celebrate the win. 'It's a personal flex to know someone who took on a biased system and came out winning,' the user further said that after their earlier post about the case, several people reached out asking for the man's contact details. 'Let me say this clearly: only you can save yourself. Don't fall for celebrity worship. Learn the laws. Join men's rights NGOs. Train yourself and take charge,' they a look at the viral Reddit post here: Reddit users had a lot to say about the post. Several users applauded the man's perseverance, while others were critical of the tone.A user, going through a divorce himself, wrote, 'I hope I get the same result. Congrats to him.' Another commented, 'It's crazy how zero maintenance is seen as a point of celebration.'There were also cynical takes on the legal process. 'I've heard lawyers work together with judges to profit from divorces, splitting cuts from alimony,' said a users even shared their own experiences with false cases and prolonged legal battles, using the post as a place to vent and connect.- EndsMust Watch
Economic Times
a day ago
- General
- Economic Times
Elderly parents facing 498A charges, win eviction case against daughter-in-law after 6-year fight; here's what happened
ET Online (Representative image) Elderly parents win eviction case against daughter-in-law after 6 years' fight under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act A husband faced a tough situation when both his wife and elderly parents filed legal cases against him in court, for different reasons. The wife filed cases under Section 498A (criminal), domestic violence (criminal) and matrimonial law against the husband and his parents. His parents, aged 66 and 67, filed a case to evict him and his wife from their house property. The husband's elderly parents alleged that they had allowed their son and daughter- in-law to reside in their house due to their immediate needs after their love marriage. However, after the daughter-in-law initiated criminal litigation(s) against them, they approached the Senior Citizens' Tribunal seeking the eviction of the son and daughter-in-law from their house. In 2019, the Tribunal ordered both the husband and wife to vacate the property within 30 days. In 2020, the wife filed an appeal against the order of the tribunal and ultimately won, resulting in the cancellation of the tribunal's eviction order. That is when the husband's elderly parents approached the Bombay High Court. In a judgment that will have a strong and positive impact on the rights of senior citizens going forward, the Bombay High Court on June 18, 2025, rejected the wife's claim to reside in her in-laws' house property after filing criminal cases against them and ordered the son and wife to vacate the house within 30 days of the order and directed them to pay rent in arrears to the elderly June 18, 2025, the Bombay High Court said: 'This petition, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by senior citizens depicts the plight of the senior citizens who are required to contest litigations against their own son and daughter-in law to enable them to enjoy their own house property.'Regarding the eviction order, wife's lawyers argued in court that she has a right to reside in the said property owned by her in-laws mainly because of pendency of matrimonial proceedings under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and proceedings under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the husband and also the criminal proceedings for offence under Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the legal argument put forth by the wife's lawyers. The Bombay High Court stated: '...Only because the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (husband and wife) were allowed by his parents to reside in their house, the same cannot be construed to have conferred any right in favour of the daughter-in-law particularly when her relations with the son have turned hostile. In any case, the son and daughter-in-law cannot compel their parents to allow them to reside in their property against their desire…'Parallel to this eviction case, the son (husband) had kept on fighting his own separate legal battle, namely the Section 498A, Domestic Violence, and other cases, in court and was ultimately acquitted i.e. freed from the criminal and matrimonial charges in reading to know the details and the legal reasonings used in this case and the reason the wife lost the case. How did this tenant eviction case start? Here we are talking about the tenant eviction case filed by the husband's senior citizen parents. The criminal and matrimonial cases filed by the wife are a separate legal case. According to the order of the Bombay High Court dated June 18, 2025, here is the timeline of events as they happened: 2008: Husband's parents buy a Bungalow using their own funds. Husband's parents buy a Bungalow using their own funds. 2016: Wife files criminal and matrimonial case against the husband and his parents (in-laws). Wife files criminal and matrimonial case against the husband and his parents (in-laws). 2019: The husband's parents who became senior citizens at that time, filed a case for eviction under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Sub Divisional Officer of the Senior Citizen tribunal allowed the application and directed the husband and wife to vacate the property within 30 days. The husband's parents who became senior citizens at that time, filed a case for eviction under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Sub Divisional Officer of the Senior Citizen tribunal allowed the application and directed the husband and wife to vacate the property within 30 days. August 7, 2020: The wife filed an appeal against the Sub Divisional Officer's order in the Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal. The appellate tribunal accepted the appeal and cancelled the eviction order against the husband and wife. The tribunal said this matter is in the nature of a civil dispute and so the appropriate court should be approached for this. The senior citizen parents soon filed an appeal against this order in the Bombay High Court. What did the senior citizen parents of the husband say before Bombay High Court? According to the order of the Bombay High Court dated June 18, 2025, here's a summary of what the parents said. They were represented by the Assistant Government Pleader: (The arguments are exactly as per the judgement, however some repetitive portions have been omitted) It is the case of the petitioners' (parents) that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the son and daughter-in-law of the petitioners who have performed love marriage and requested for allowing them to stay in their house and accordingly the petitioners allowed them to reside in the said property. The petitioners had alleged that they allowed their son and daughter- in-law to reside in their home considering their immediate needs after their marriage. However, after the daughter in law started frivolous litigations against them, they approached the Tribunal seeking eviction from their house. On account of disputes in between respondent Nos.3 and 4, the respondent No.4 (wife) started harassing the petitioners and she even filed criminal cases against the petitioners, apart from matrimonial proceedings against her husband. The petitioners' case is that they have obtained a loan to purchase the said property which they are repaying but are now deprived from enjoying their own property and therefore they were constrained to approach the Tribunal under Section 5 r/w 20 of the Act. Also read: Mental cruelty: Know how a husband won a divorce battle in High Court as wife mocked his physical infirmity; Permanent alimony amount to be decided The Bombay High Court says that the wife's primary contention does not stand The Bombay High Court said: The primary contention of respondent No.4 (wife) as deduced from her memorandum of Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is her right to claim maintenance and to reside in the property and her contentions about pendency of the matrimonial proceedings and criminal case against her husband and petitioners. However, it is crucial to note that there is nothing on record in the nature of any order or decree directing grant of maintenance or right to reside in favour of respondent No.4. Neither there is any specific order under the provisions of the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in favour of respondent No.4 to claim residence in the property of the petitioners. Thus, apart from her bare contentions in the appeal before the Appellate Authority, there is no document on record establishing any right in favour of respondent No.4 to reside in the suit property. It has to be noted that the petitioners have filed on record a copy of judgment in Regular Criminal Case No.106 of 2016 dated 13.09.2023, by which the petitioners and their son are acquitted from the criminal case. Also read: Matrimonial Dispute: Husband loses job after wife wins case; Know how this impacts private and government employees Bombay HC aks why does the wife who has a 3-bedroom house in her name need to reside in the husband's parents' house? The Bombay High Court said: Pertinent to note, the petitioners (parents) have filed on record an affidavit dated 19.06.2024 categorically stating therein that during the pendency of the present petition, the respondent No.4 (wife) has purchased a house property by way of registered sale deed dated 27.08.2021, consisting of three bedrooms and presently she is residing in the said house. It is stated that despite her own independent house property, the respondent No.4 is also occupying a portion of the suit property belonging to the petitioners. Along with this affidavit the petitioners have also filed on record copy of sale deed in favour of respondent No.4. It is important to note, respondent No.4 (wife) has not filed any counter affidavit disputing this categorical assertion by the petitioners. In the wake of these factual aspects, it has to be inferred that the respondent No.4 (wife) has failed to establish any right to occupy or reside in the suit property. Bombay High Court says elderly parents cannot be compelled to let son & his wife stay in their house against their wishes The Bombay High Court said: It is crucial to note that the suit property is self-acquired property of the petitioners and the son and daughter-in-law had failed to establish any legal right to reside in that house. As stated earlier, only because respondent Nos.3 and 4 (husband and wife) were allowed by the petitioners to reside in their house, the same cannot be construed to have conferred any right in favour of the daughter-in-law particularly when her relations with the son have turned hostile. In any case, the son and daughter-in-law cannot compel their parents to allow them to reside in their property against their desire. As such there is no legal basis for the claim of the respondent no.4 to reside in the petitioners' house and on the contrary the petitioners are entitled to invoke provisions of the Act to seek eviction of the respondents no.3 and 4. Bombay HC: Wife can independently pursue her right to claim maintenance or right to reside in the property of her husband The Bombay High Court said: As regards, the contentions of respondent No.4 (wife) based on her right to claim maintenance or right to reside in the property of her husband, the same can be independently enforced by her, if a situation arises. However, under the pretext of enforcing her rights arising out of any matrimonial proceedings as against her husband, she cannot be allowed to defeat the rights of her parents-in-law which are independently protected under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. As such, the competing rights of the daughter-in-law cannot be compromised at the cost of the rights of the senior citizens to enjoy their own property independently. Thus, in the peculiar facts of this case, particularly, considering the legal position, directing the petitioners to initiate fresh civil proceedings for eviction of their daughter-in-law would be detrimental and would defeat the purpose of the enactment. In the light of the factual and legal opinion I am of the firm view that the Appellate Tribunal has grossly erred in allowing the appeal and directing the parties to approach civil court for seeking eviction. Bombay High Court final judgement Judgement: 'On consideration of the overall factual and legal aspects of the matter, the instant petition needs to be allowed. The impugned order dated 07.08.2020 passed by respondent No.1-Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal/District Collector, Nandurbar, in case No.2020/home/Division2/Appeal/4/2020 is quashed and set aside and the order dated 18.02.2019 passed by respondent No.2-Sub Divisional Officer in Case No. 2019/Senior Citizen/Kavi/02 is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the respondents no.3 and 4 are directed to vacate the house property of the petitioners within a period of 30 days from the date of this judgment.' Bombay High Court directs husband and wife to pay rent in arrears to the elderly parents While announcing this judgement, the Bombay High Court said: In the instant case, the conduct of respondent No.4 daughter-in-law which has constrained the petitioners to initiate legal proceedings, warrants serious and thoughtful consideration. The appeal u/s 16 (1) was filed only by the respondent no.4. Although respondent No.4 has contested the proceedings before the Tribunal and Appellate Authority, however, she has blatantly ignored the mandate of the order passed by this court. It has to be noted that despite a specific order passed by this Court on 21.12.2022, directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 (husband and wife) to deposit an amount of Rs 20,000 per month towards occupation of the suit property from the date of order passed by the Tribunal, the same is not at all compiled by them. It is apparent that during the pendency of the petition, the respondent No.4 has continued to occupy the petitioners' home in absence of any right in her favour thereby compelling the petitioners to indulge in litigations up to this court. This conduct on the part of respondent No.4 (wife) is deprecated. Since respondent No. 3 and 4 have failed to comply with the mandate of the order passed by this Court directing to pay Rs 20,000 per month from the date of order of the Tribunal i.e. 18 February 2019, it is necessary in the interest of justice to direct the respondent No.3 and 4 to comply with the said order. Accordingly, the respondent no. 3 and 4 (husband and wife) are directed to comply and pay to the petitioners the entire amount of arrears at the earliest and also to bear with the costs of the instant petition. What is the significance of this case for senior citizens and husbands? ET Wealth Online has asked various lawyers about what might be the significance of this judgement, here's what they said: Rahul Hingmire, Managing Partner, Vis Legis Law Practice says: This judgment is a landmark for senior citizens asserting their legal right to exclusive residence and protection of self-acquired property. It affirms that ownership and peaceful possession cannot be overridden by vague claims from children or in-laws. The court strongly upheld a husband's right to safeguard his parents' property from wrongful occupation by a daughter-in-law, making it clear that pending matrimonial disputes or domestic violence proceedings do not grant her any independent residency rights in her in-laws' home. It clarified that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is not limited to maintenance but also ensures statutory protection of property rights for elders, which cannot be overridden by personal law claims. Abhinay Sharma, Managing Partner, ASL Partners, says: This Bombay High Court's ruling is a landmark for two reasons: It strengthens the legal position of senior citizens who seek protection from within their own homes, and it draws necessary limits on the misuse of matrimonial litigation to interfere with the independent rights of the elderly. It will serve as a guiding precedent for Tribunals and courts across the country dealing with similar inter-generational disputes. A. Impact on Senior Citizens This judgment will have a strong and positive impact on the rights of senior citizens going forward. It clarifies and reinforces that senior citizens need not approach civil courts to reclaim peaceful possession of their self-acquired homes when facing harassment or interference from their own children or in-laws. The ruling makes it clear that Tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 have the power to order eviction where required to protect the dignity and property rights of the Hon'ble Court has taken a firm stand that the Act is not limited to maintenance but must be interpreted to include the protection of property and safety of senior citizens. In its own words:This judgment will empower senior citizens in future to assert their rights under the Act with greater confidence. It sets a precedent that they cannot be forced to tolerate continued occupation of their home by children or in-laws who misuse the family relationship or resort to litigation to delay eviction. It ensures that the very purpose of the Act is to provide quick, effective, and compassionate remedies will not be defeated by technical objections or delays. B. Impact on Husbands in Matrimonial Disputes For husbands facing matrimonial litigation, this judgment brings clarity and balance, particularly in situations where disputes between spouses spill over into conflicts involving the husband's parents and their property. The Hon'ble High Court has drawn a clear legal boundary: a wife cannot claim a right to reside in her in-laws' house unless she has a specific legal order granting her that right, especially where the property is self-acquired by the parents and not part of any shared matrimonial ruling is likely to reduce the misuse of pending matrimonial or criminal cases as a means to occupy or take control of property belonging to elderly in-laws. The Hon'ble Court noted that the daughter-in-law in the case had neither any judicial order granting her residence rights nor any legal interest in the property. Despite this, she continued to occupy the house and ignored court directions. The Court made it clear that going forward, this judgment will serve as a precedent that husbands cannot be used as a conduit to interfere with or deny the statutory rights of their parents. It reinforces that while a wife may have enforceable rights against her husband under matrimonial law, those rights do not extend to taking over property owned solely by her in-laws, unless backed by a specific legal entitlement. This will help reduce prolonged and unjustified occupation of elderly parents' homes during family disputes. Shashank Agarwal, Founder, Legum Solis, says: This judgment reinforces the principles and objectives behind The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which are clearly aimed at protecting the life and liberty of the Senior Citizens, particularly, from their own children and their spouses. This judgment should act as a deterrent to those people and spouses who mistreat their elderly parents and attempt to oust them out of their own homes. Sneha Bhogle Kale, Senior Partner, Accord Juris LLP, says: This case merely reiterated previous rulings in 2018 in Dattatrey Shivaji Mane and affirms that the Senior Citizens Act is a welfare statute to protect elderly rights and ensure their safety and well being. The children have got no legal rights to reside in the house of their parents and mere permission doesn't confer a legal right. The tribunals for this specific purpose are meant to ensure speedy and affordable remedies. Several courts have held consistently that senior citizens can evict children from their self acquired property if ill treated. This judgment passed by the Bombay High Court gives the senior citizens an awareness about their rights and affirms that their rights have to be safeguarded and they do have a right to live with dignity and self also assures them that their hard earned money is not left in the hands of greedy children who fail to take care of them in their old age. It puts a sense of fear among the children that they cannot ill treat their ageing parents as they can be evicted from their parents house if they don't treat them with dignity and respect. N.R. Narayana Murthy Founder, Infosys Watch Now Harsh Mariwala Chairman & Founder, Marico Watch Now Adar Poonawalla CEO, Serum Institute of India Watch Now Ronnie Screwvala Chairperson & Co-founder, upGrad Watch Now Puneet Dalmia Managing Director, Dalmia Bharat group Watch Now Martin Schwenk Former President & CEO, Mercedes-Benz, Thailand Watch Now Nadir Godrej Managing Director, of Godrej Industries Watch Now Manu Jain Former- Global Vice President, Xiaomi Watch Now Nithin Kamath Founder, CEO, Zerodha Watch Now Anil Agarwal Executive Chairman, Vedanta Resources Watch Now Dr. Prathap C. Reddy Founder Chairman, Apollo Hospitals Watch Now Vikram Kirloskar Former Vice Chairman, Toyota Kirloskar Motor Watch Now Kiran Mazumdar Shaw Executive Chairperson, Biocon Limited Watch Now Shashi Kiran Shetty Chairman of Allcargo Logistics, ECU Worldwide and Gati Ltd Watch Now Samir K Modi Managing Director, Modi Enterprises Watch Now R Gopalakrishnan Former Director Tata Sons, Former Vice Chairman, HUL Watch Now Sanjiv Mehta Former Chairman / CEO, Hindustan Unilever Watch Now Dr Ajai Chowdhry Co-Founder, HCL, Chairman EPIC Foundation, Author, Just Aspire Watch Now Shiv Khera Author, Business Consultant, Motivational Speaker Watch Now Nakul Anand Executive Director, ITC Limited Watch Now RS Sodhi Former MD, Amul & President, Indian Dairy Association Watch Now Anil Rai Gupta Managing Director & Chairman, Havells Watch Now Zia Mody Co-Founder & Managing Partner, AZB & Partners Watch Now Arundhati Bhattacharya Chairperson & CEO, Salesforce India Watch Now
News18
23-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
SC Freezes Quick Arrests In Marriage Cruelty Cases, Bats For Two-Month ‘Cooling Period'
The Supreme Court was hearing a case where the man and his father had spent over 100 days in jail based on false complaints filed by the wife, an IPS officer The Supreme Court, while hearing a case where a man and his father spent months in jail after the wife filed several false cases against them, has reaffirmed that no immediate arrests should be made in cases of alleged cruelty by spouses under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Instead, a mandatory two-month 'cooling-off" period will be in place before any police action is considered, upholding guidelines first framed by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, was hearing a case where the man and his father had spent over 100 days in jail based on false complaints filed by the wife, an IPS officer. Recognising the irreparable harm suffered, the court ordered the wife to issue an unconditional public apology, calling it a measure of moral redress for the wrongful imprisonment sustained by her husband and father-in-law. According to the guidelines, after an FIR is lodged for cruelty in marriage, police authorities must wait two months before taking any coercive action, including arrest. During this period, cases must be referred to Family Welfare Committees set up in every district, which will review the complaints and try to achieve a settlement. Only cases involving offences punishable by less than 10 years' imprisonment, including 498A, will be referred to these committees. Each Family Welfare Committee will consist of at least three members and will function as an independent review body before further police intervention is permitted. These directives have their legal roots in the Allahabad High Court's 2022 judgment, which sought to address a worrying trend: the misuse of Section 498A via sweeping, unsubstantiated allegations that could result in entire families—sometimes even extended relatives—being implicated, harassed, and jailed. The Supreme Court, by endorsing these safeguards, has now clarified that such protection is vital to prevent unnecessary arrests and to ensure the criminal justice system is not weaponized in personal disputes. In the case that led to this decision, the matrimonial discord involved a series of litigations in multiple cities, with over 20 different cases related to domestic violence, maintenance, and criminal charges. The bench observed that what the accused had suffered due to the misapplication of the law 'cannot be resituated or compensated in any manner," highlighting the need for systemic procedural reform. Legal experts believe that the cooling period and welfare committee review will help to weed out frivolous and malicious complaints, protect those who may otherwise be wrongly ensnared in criminal proceedings, and focus mediation on reconciliation and fair outcomes. Meanwhile, the core protections for genuinely aggrieved women remain intact, as serious allegations supported by strong evidence can still be acted upon—after the initial review. view comments First Published: July 23, 2025, 13:27 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
India.com
23-07-2025
- India.com
SC Upholds Allahabad HC Order: No Arrest For 2 Months Following Domestic Violence Complaints Under IPC 498A
In a significant development, the Supreme Court has upheld the Allahabad High Court's guidelines regarding complaints/FIRs filed under the Domestic Violence Law (IPC 498A), which direct that accused persons should not be arrested for two months after the complaint is registered. The Supreme Court stated that the guidelines set by the Allahabad High Court will remain effective, and the concerned departments must adhere to them. The Allahabad High Court, in its 2022 judgment, issued these guidelines to curb the increasing trend of misuse of Section 498A, where the husband and his entire family are falsely implicated. The key instruction in the High Court's guidelines was that during a two-month cooling-off period after the FIR or complaint is registered, no arrest or police action will be taken against the accused. During this period, the matter will be immediately referred to the Family Welfare Committee in each district. In another development, the Supreme Court has directed an IPS officer to tender an unconditional public apology to her former husband and in-laws for the "physical and mental agony" caused by several false criminal cases she filed against them during their marital dispute, according to an NDTV report. A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih ordered the quashing of all ongoing cases in the matter and dissolution of the marriage, as the couple had separated in 2018. The apex court also ruled that the daughter will stay with her mother, and the husband and family can visit her. In its verdict, the court noted that the husband spent 109 days and his father 103 days in jail due to criminal cases filed by the wife. The court held that the suffering they had to endure was irreparable and directed the officer to tender a public apology. "The woman and her parents shall tender an unconditional apology to her husband and his family members, which shall be published in the national edition of a well-known English and a Hindi newspaper," NDT reported, quoting the judges. The judges said that the apology must also be published and shared on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and other similar social media platforms within three days of the order. They clarified that this apology should not be seen as an admission of guilt and will not affect any legal rights, responsibilities, or consequences under the law.
