In order to protect helpless women who were regularly getting abused and beaten and tortured by their respective husbands and husband’s family members, multiple changes were made to IPC. Accordingly, under Section 498A cruelty to a woman by her husband or any relative of her husband was made punishable for with an imprisonment for a term of three years and also with fine.

However, since the Section was subject matter of controversy, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it was often being “used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives.”2 Because of this, various judgments over time have also read down the Section.

In Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and Another, the judgment of Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and another3 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court came in question. In the Rajesh Sharma judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in order to prevent misuse of S. 498-A, gave a number of directions such as

  1. One or more Family Welfare Committees were to be constituted by the District Legal Services Authorities in every district. Every complaint under Section 498A received by the police or the Magistrate would then be referred to and looked into by such Committee which would within one month give its report to such committee. Till the report was received, no arrest would be normally effected.
  2. The complaints under Section 498A and other connected offences may be investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of the area.
  3. Further, in cases where a settlement is reached, the District and Sessions Judge or any other senior Judicial Officer nominated by him could dispose of the proceedings and close the criminal case if dispute primarily related to matrimonial discord.
  4. If a bail application was filed with at least one clear day’s notice to the Public Prosecutor/ complainant, the same may be decided as far as possible on the same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected.
  5. In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine.
  6. It will be open to the District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer nominated by the District Judge to club all connected cases between the parties arising out of matrimonial disputes so that a holistic view is taken by the Court to whom all such cases are entrusted; and
  7. Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of the trial.

In Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and Another,the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined whether the Court in Rajesh Sharma could, by the method of interpretation, have issued above such directions. With due deliberations, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to modify the directions issued in Rajesh Sharma case.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court undertook a re-examination of the directions and only retained the ones that find their bedrock within the Indian Penal Code – and in doing so – propounded a more balanced approach towards the application of section 498A.