A misnomer: The myth that is the 'misuse' of 498-A

THE tragic death by suicide of a 34 year old software engineer in Bengaluru in December 2024 once more catapulted the concern over the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), now Section 85 under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which addresses cruelty of women in their matrimonial homes. Calls for justice on social media for Atul Subhash who left detailed notes of the circumstances leading to his suicide, demands to sack his wife from her workplace, sensational media reports of his tragic death, and testimonies of men suffering similar circumstances where their wives have filed false cruelty cases against them for ulterior motives, have successfully convinced a significant proportion of the Indian populace, and especially the urban middle class, that not only is Section 498A grossly misused, but also that laws in India are pro-women and biased against men.

The allegation of misuse is not new. The Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System headed by Justice V.S. Malimath (2003) stated that the non bailable and non-compoundable nature of Section 498A of IPC does a disservice to both the estranged husband and wife since it forecloses any possibility of reconciliation. It also states that “less tolerant impulsive woman [sic] may lodge an FIR even on a trivial act.  The result is that the husband and his family may be immediately arrested and there may be a suspension or loss of job.” 

The 243rd Law Commission Report (2012) reiterates this and cites other cases on misuse of the section. It refers to Sushil Kumar v. Union of India (2005) where Supreme Court critiqued that several instances of 498A were filed based on personal vendetta and it was imperative for the legislature to investigate how frivolous complaints or allegations can appropriately be dealt with. The misuse of the section was labelled as a new kind of “legal terrorism”. 

The Supreme Court and High Courts have responded subsequently sternly to the ‘misuse’ of this provision. A close reading of judgements reveals the terse tone and perpetuates the notion that this section is widely and indiscriminately misused by women. The judgements establish that courts are critical of the wide overreach of the provision that implicates elderly and ailing in-laws, relatives not residing in the matrimonial home where the alleged incidents of abuse occurred and inclusion of non relatives, like cases being filed against the lover of the husband with whom he was in an adulterous relationship. The role of the police who might not have conducted preliminary enquiry into the allegations of cruelty and that of lawyers who advice on including incidents of mental cruelty which are often not backed up by adequate evidence and inclusion of legal provisions like dowry demands where such claims cannot be adequately proved in court are brought into question by the courts. 

Courts have also noted the vague and overarching nature of allegations without specifics as deeply problematic. They have noted that the filing of frivolous and false complaints by women  to take advantage of laws intended to protect them from cruelty, does disservice to genuine cases of cruelty and therefore such complaints have to be dealt with a strong hand. 

Phrases like “trivial complaints” and “legal terrorism” are deeply problematic and smacks of patriarchal bias. What makes a complaint ‘trivial’?