498-A IPC

OBJECT:
For safeguarding the interest of woman against the interest of woman against the cruelty
they face behind the four walls of their matrimonial home, IPC was amended in 1983 and
inserted S.498A which deals with Matrimonial Cruelty to a woman.
The section was enacted to combat the menace of dowry deaths. By the same Act section
113-A has been added to the Indian Evidence Act to raise presumption regarding
abetment of suicide by married woman. The main objective of section 498-A of I.P.C is
to protect a woman who is being harassed by her husband or relatives of husband.
NATURE :
Offenders are liable for imprisonment as well as a fine under the section and the offence
is non bailable, non-compoundable and cognizable on a complaint made to the police
officer by the victim or by designated relatives.
MEANING:
The section provides an explanation that elaborates the meaning of cruelty as follows:

a) Any wilful conduct which is of a nature as is likely to drive the woman to

commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health
(whether physical or mental) of the woman; or
b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her
or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to
meet such demand."

Kaliyaperumal Vs. State Of Tamil Nadu

-

that cruelty is a common essential in offences under both the sections 304B and
498A of IPC. Both are distinct offences and persons acquitted under section 304B for
the offence of dowry death can be convicted for an offence under sec.498A of IPC.

Section 304B does not contain its meaning but the meaning of cruelty or harassment
as given in section 498-A applies in section 304-B as well.

Under section 498-A of IPC cruelty by itself amounts to an offence whereas under
section 304-B the offence is of dowry death and the death must have occurred during
the course of seven years of marriage. But no such period is mentioned in section
498-A.

SECTION 498 A NOT ULTRA VIRES

The very definition of cruelity was challenged being voilative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
In P. SATYANARAYANs case
1.

The husband who was prosecuted challenged the very definition of cruelty as
given under the section as arbitrary and vague.
Court Held :
o Expression cruelly is not capable of precise definition
o There is no vagueness and it is not ultra vires
o Each case has to be judged in the light of its particular circumstances

2.

Relatives cannot be singled out

Court Held:
o Dowry deaths are a hazard faced by woman, the husband and relatives of may
be treated as a class

3.

Challenged Amendment to Evidence Act 113A: that the court may presume that
such suicide has been abetted by her husband or relatives of husband. Burden of
proof of innocence on the in-laws.
Court held:
o No doubt this is a departure from normal principle of criminal jurisprudence
o But offence in a marital home pertains to a terrain in-tractable, therefore the
lawmakers felt the need for presumptive evidence.

NO DOUBLE JEAOPARDY :
In Inder Raj Malik and others vs. Sumita Malik, it was contended that this section
is ultra vires Article 14 and Article 20 (2) of the Constitution. There is the Dowry
Prohibition Act, which also deals with similar types of cases; therefore, both statutes
together create a situation commonly known as double jeopardy. But Court held that this

section does not create situation for double jeopardy. Section 498-A is distinguishable
from section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act because in the latter mere demand of dowry
is punishable and existence of element of cruelty is not necessary, whereas section 498-A
deals with aggravated form of the offence. It punishes such demands of property or
valuable security from the wife or her relatives as are coupled with cruelty to her. Hence
a person can be prosecuted in respect of both the offences punishable under section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act and this section.
CASES :
Wazir Chand vs. State of Haryana
Death by burning of a newly married woman, the circumstances did not establish either
murder or an abetted suicide and thus in-laws escaped the jaws of section 300 and 306,
but they were caught in the web of this newly enacted section for prevention of
harassment for dowry.
Ram Kishan Jain v State of Madhya Pradesh
Due to insufficiency of dowry demands the woman was administered calmpose tablets
and thereafter she even cut the arteries of both her hands. Sometimes, dowry may not be
the cause but the woman for several reasons like her complexion or family status is
tortured to death.
Surajmal Banthia v. State of West Bengal
The deceased was ill-treated and tortured for several days and even not given food
several times. Her father- in-law also misbehaved with her quite often.
MISUSE
Several cases show that the married woman takes advantage of the section and sends the
respondents to jail under the ambit of this section. Many women rights groups justify the
abuse of this section as being a common feature with all other laws and that also the ratio
of false cases to that of true ones as being very low. But this still does not change the
truth that there is slowly a rise in the abuse of S.498A IPC.

CONSTITUTITONAL VALIDITY OF ADULTERY

YUSUF ABDUL AZIZS CASE

Challenged the constitutional validity of the provision. However, Bombay high court
chief justice M C Chagla had upheld the provision saying the Constitution permitted such
special legislation for women, it was held in this case that this section does not
contravene any of the fundamental rights laid down in the Constitution of India, and
therefore it is not bad or void under Articles 13.
SOWMITHI VISHNUs CASE
The Supreme Court observed that adultery is a wrong against the sanctity of the
matrimonial home. Thus charges are pressed against the outsider who breaks the said
sanctity. The woman, in cases of adultery, is considered the victim of a seducer. It
appears that the court believes that the man has an unstoppable seductive charm and the
woman is helpless against it. The evil that is punished by the law, in the mind of the
court, is that of seduction of a woman by another man. According to the court the woman
is considered to be the victim. Thus the court held that the law was non discriminatory
and not violating the right to equality, thus the court upheld the constitutional validity of
the section 497. The court also opined that by not allowing the spouses to prosecute each
other the law offers a chance to the spouse to make-up, it was further held that Section
497 is not violative of Articles 14, 15 & 21 of the Constitution.
CRITICISM
We must keep in mind that these reasons and defenses were given decades ago. The most
important reason for debate to get re-ignited is the drastic change in the social status of
women. Gone are the days when Women were a suppressed or subjugated lot, The
practices of sati, child marriage, polygamy, etc, have been done away with.
Today there are laws against these evils and also laws providing effective relief against
heinous acts such as domestic violence, dowry and others. Almost all professional
colleges has a quota for women. Thus women today are in no way inferior to men or

suppressed, and are at par with the opposite sex. The effective implementation of these
laws and other women friendly provisions in the constitution insures that women, today,
have an edge in the society. All this has resulted in them gaining the power of choice.
They can no longer be classified as victims in cases of adultery.

It is pertinent to note here that The 42nd Law Commission Report has suggested to
substitute section 497 of the IPC, the substituting provision is S. 497. Adultery
Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is, and whom he or she knows, or has
reason to believe, to be the wife or husband, as the case may be, of another person,
without the consent or connivance of that other person, such sexual intercourse by the
man not amounting to the offence of rape commits adultery, and shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with
fine, or with both
The Malimath Committee on Criminal Justice Reforms has re-iterated more or less
the same argument, that men and women being equally partners in the deplorable act,
should be made to stand at the same footing, and equal treatment should be meted out to
them both.
In light of the above critical analysis, it is very much apparent & beyond doubt, that the
prevailing law is not in consonance with the changed times, the law is neither socially apt
nor does it stand to the principles of equality, from absolute conservatism to absolute
liberty, the social fabric of our country has undergone a drastic change.