Section 498A IPC, now Section 85 BNS, protects women from cruelty. But repeated misuse, vague allegations and mass implication of in-laws show why structural reform is urgently needed.
NEW DELHI: Section 498A IPC was created to protect women from cruelty, dowry harassment and abuse. But when vague allegations are used to drag husbands, parents, sisters and distant relatives into criminal cases, the law itself needs structural safeguards.
Section 498A IPC, now carried forward as Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, was never meant to become a shortcut for revenge, settlement pressure or family-wide criminal prosecution. It was created to punish cruelty by a husband or his relatives. Under BNS, Section 85 provides punishment up to three years and fine, while Section 86 defines cruelty as conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide, cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, or harassment connected with unlawful demand for property or valuable security.
I say this clearly: genuine victims must get protection. Dowry harassment and cruelty are real social evils. The Supreme Court itself recently refused to strike down Section 498A and observed that dowry continues to be deeply entrenched in India. The Court also held that misuse alone cannot make a protective provision unconstitutional.
But that is only half the truth.
The other half is what thousands of husbands and their families face every year: vague FIRs, omnibus allegations, elderly parents named without role, married sisters dragged in, distant relatives added, and criminal law used as leverage in matrimonial disputes.
In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court said Section 498A has become a provision “used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives.” The Court also noted that the “simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested.”
That is not men’s rights rhetoric. That is the Supreme Court of India.
The Court therefore directed police not to automatically arrest in 498A cases and mandated compliance with Section 41 CrPC principles. The same logic now continues under the new criminal procedure regime: arrest cannot be mechanical, liberty cannot be casual, and matrimonial allegations cannot be treated as conviction before trial.
In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court again warned against the growing tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. The Court held that false implication through general and omnibus allegations, if unchecked, results in misuse of the process of law.
This is the core problem.
The law punishes cruelty. But the system often starts punishing the accused before cruelty is proved.
A husband loses reputation before trial. Parents lose peace before evidence. Sisters and relatives face summons before any specific role is shown. Careers suffer. Passports suffer. Bail becomes the first battle. Settlement pressure becomes the hidden objective.
That is why I do not ask for repeal. I ask for structural reform.
Section 85 BNS should remain for genuine cruelty. But misuse prevention must be built into the process itself. Every FIR or complaint should clearly disclose date, place, role of each accused, nature of cruelty, link with dowry demand if alleged, and supporting material where available.
- No person should be added only because he or she is related to the husband.
- No arrest should happen merely because a 498A/85 BNS allegation exists.
- No elderly parent, married sister, NRI relative or distant family member should be forced into criminal trial on copy-paste allegations.
- No settlement should be extracted under fear of jail.
The Supreme Court in Social Action Forum also recognized the need to balance protection of women with lawful investigation and safeguards against arbitrary arrest. The Court did not approve weakening the law, but it also accepted that arrest and investigation must follow legal discipline.
This is exactly where reform must happen.
Structural reform means:
- First, mandatory allegation-specific scrutiny before summoning relatives.
- Second, written reasons before arrest.
- Third, accountability for false, exaggerated or knowingly vague complaints.
- Fourth, separate treatment for husband and relatives where allegations are not identical.
- Fifth, fast quashing of proceedings where allegations are general, omnibus and legally insufficient.
- Sixth, equal recognition of reputational harm caused by false criminal prosecution.
- Seventh, data collection on acquittals, quashing, settlements and false implication patterns.
India does not need a weaker law. India needs a cleaner law.
- A law that protects genuine women.
- A law that does not destroy innocent men.
- A law that punishes cruelty, not entire families by default.
- A law that respects due process as much as it respects protection.
The question is not whether women need protection. They do.
The question is whether innocent husbands and families deserve protection from misuse. They do too.
Justice cannot be gender-selective. Due process cannot be optional. And criminal law cannot become a matrimonial bargaining counter.
That is why Section 498A IPC / Section 85 BNS needs structural reform.
Not to protect cruelty.
But to protect justice.
FAQs
Yes. Its successor under BNS is Section 85, with cruelty defined under Section 86.
must
No automatic arrest is permitted. The Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar directed police to justify arrest through legal necessity.
Yes. Courts have repeatedly quashed cases where allegations are general, omnibus and lack specific role.
No. Genuine victims need protection. The correct solution is structural reform, not blind repeal.