Section 498A IPC, now BNS Sections 85 and 86, punishes cruelty by husband or in-laws. Here is what Indian courts treat as real cruelty, what they reject, and why vague allegations still fail.
NEW DELHI: A lot of people throw around the word “cruelty” as if every marital dispute, every argument, every taunt, every unhappy marriage, and every failed relationship automatically becomes a criminal case.
That is not the law. Since 1 July 2024, the old Section 498A IPC has effectively shifted into Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The core offence remains the same: cruelty by the husband or his relatives toward a married woman, punishable with up to three years and fine. Section 86 gives the legal definition of cruelty.
The procedural position also matters. Under the BNSS framework, the offence remains non-bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the First Class. It is cognizable, but the First Schedule ties cognizability to information being given by the aggrieved woman, her blood/marriage/adoption relatives, or in the absence of such relatives, a notified public servant. BNSS Section 220 separately restricts cognizance to a police report or a complaint by the aggrieved woman or specified relatives. Section 85 is also not listed among the compoundable offences in BNSS Section 359.
The first thing people must understand is this: 498A / BNS 85 is not a general “bad husband” section. It is a penal provision with specific statutory ingredients. Courts do not convict because a marriage turned sour. Courts convict when the facts fit the law.
What The Law Actually Says
Legally, “cruelty” has two buckets.
First, there is wilful conduct of such gravity that it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, or cause grave injury, or danger to life, limb, or mental or physical health.
Second, there is harassment tied to an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, or harassment because that demand was not met.
That is the entire legal backbone. If your facts do not fit one of these two buckets, calling it “cruelty” on social media is easy; proving it in court is a different matter.
What Counts As Cruelty
1) Serious Physical Or Mental Abuse With Real Legal Gravity
If there is sustained violence, grave intimidation, conduct pushing the woman toward self-harm, or treatment seriously endangering her physical or mental health, courts can treat that as cruelty under clause (a). The statute itself is framed around gravity, not ordinary unpleasantness.
2) Harassment Linked To Dowry Or Unlawful Property Demand
This is where many 498A cases are built. But the law is precise even here. The harassment must be connected to coercing the woman or her family to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that every harassment is not cruelty. The harassment must have that specific coercive object.
3) Continuous Or Proximate Conduct, Not Random Historical Bitterness
In Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, the Court stressed that cruelty under 498A has to be established through conduct that is continuous, persistent, or at least close in time to the complaint. The Court’s reasoning is important because it rejects the lazy idea that any old grievance can simply be repackaged as criminal cruelty years later.
What Does Not Count As Cruelty
1) Petty Quarrels And Routine Marital Wear And Tear
Indian courts have repeatedly drawn a line between matrimonial unhappiness and criminal cruelty. In Manju Ram Kalita, the Court said petty quarrels do not become 498A cruelty. In Girdhar Shankar Tawade, the Supreme Court also emphasized that “cruelty” under the section has a specific statutory meaning and cannot be stretched casually.
2) Harassment Without A Proven Dowry-Linked Object
This is a major point people miss. The Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao made it clear that harassment simpliciter is not enough. Unless the prosecution shows that the harassment was aimed at coercing an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, clause (b) is not automatically attracted.
3) Bald, Omnibus, Family-Wide Allegations
This is where many false or exaggerated matrimonial prosecutions start collapsing. The Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra, Kahkashan Kausar, and later decisions in 2024 and 2025 repeatedly warned that distant relatives cannot be dragged into criminal litigation through vague, general, and omnibus allegations. Specific role attribution matters. Dates, incidents, participation, and the exact unlawful demand matter. Criminal law is not meant to be a family-roundup device.
4) Mere Naming Of Every In-Law Without Material
The recent Supreme Court trend has only sharpened this principle. In decisions from December 2024, February 2025, June 2025 and March 2026, the Court continued to scrutinize matrimonial FIRs for generalised allegations, delay, missing particulars, and lack of statutory ingredients. The message is plain: criminal process cannot be allowed to run on accusation inflation alone.
5) A Husband’s Girlfriend Or Live-In Partner Being Casually Labelled A “Relative”
The Supreme Court in U. Suvetha v. State held that a girlfriend or concubine cannot be expanded into “relative of the husband” for 498A purposes. Penal provisions are interpreted strictly. Courts cannot invent new categories of accused because the allegations sound morally charged.
The Courtroom Reality Most People Learn Too Late
The real danger in 498A / BNS 85 litigation is not only conviction. It is process. FIR. Police pressure. Passport anxiety. Summons. Bail. Social stigma. Family members in their sixties and seventies being named.
That is exactly why Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar remains one of the most important judgments in this space. The Supreme Court held that arrest cannot be automatic merely because a 498A-type allegation is made; police must satisfy the statutory conditions for arrest, and Magistrates must not authorise detention mechanically.
Later, in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar, the Court kept the statutory balance intact while making it clear that extra-legal mechanisms like the earlier Family Welfare Committees could not override the Code.
So the correct legal position is balanced, not hysterical. The law exists because grave cruelty and dowry harassment are real. But the courts also know that vague matrimonial allegations are often used to pressure, corner, negotiate, and punish.
That is why Indian case law now stands on two legs at the same time: protect genuine victims, but do not let criminal law become a weapon of indiscriminate family harassment.
Practical Legal Test: Ask These 6 Questions
Before anyone screams “498A” or “BNS 85,” ask six hard questions:
- Was there conduct serious enough to endanger life, limb, or mental/physical health?
- Was there a specific unlawful demand for money, property, valuables, or security?
- Was the harassment connected to that demand?
- Are there concrete incidents, dates, words, messages, witnesses, medical records, or other material?
- Are the allegations against each accused specific, or is everyone being clubbed together?
- Is the complaint describing a continuing pattern, or merely replaying generalized marital bitterness?
Those are the questions that decide whether a case survives judicial scrutiny or starts falling apart. That is not activism. That is black-letter law applied properly.
Final Word
Section 498A IPC, now BNS Sections 85 and 86, was never meant to criminalise every failed marriage. It targets a specific kind of cruelty: grave abuse, or harassment linked to unlawful demand.
Indian courts have said it again and again: petty quarrels are not enough, every harassment is not enough, and vague allegations against every relative are not enough.
If the facts are real, the law is strong. If the allegations are inflated, omnibus, or strategically drafted to rope in the whole family, courts are increasingly willing to cut through the misuse.
FAQs
- Is Section 498A still in force in India?
For new criminal-law numbering, the offence now sits in BNS Sections 85 and 86, in force from 1 July 2024; the substance remains substantially the same as old IPC 498A. - Does every fight between husband and wife become 498A cruelty?
No. Courts have clearly said petty quarrels and routine marital friction do not automatically amount to legal cruelty. - Is every allegation of harassment enough for a 498A / BNS 85 case?
No. For clause (b), the harassment must be linked to coercing an unlawful demand for property or valuable security. - Can the wife name every in-law and make the case stick?
Not automatically. Courts repeatedly quash proceedings where allegations against relatives are vague, omnibus, and unsupported by specific role attribution. - Can police arrest immediately in every 498A / BNS 85 complaint?
Not lawfully. Arnesh Kumar requires police to justify arrest under statutory safeguards; automatic arrest is not permitted.
