Subscribe

Law Library › Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

BNS s. 85-86: Cruelty by husband or his relatives

Earlier law: IPC s. 498A. 4 leading judgments. Open a judgment to read its headnote.

Section 85 is the offence and section 86 defines cruelty (old IPC s. 498A and its Explanation).

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar Supreme Court of India · 2 July 2014 · (2014) 8 SCC 273
Case
Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2014 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9127 of 2013)
Bench
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, Pinaki Chandra Ghose (judgment by Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.)
Provisions
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 498A (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, s. 85, with the Explanation now s. 86)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ss. 41 and 41A

Open the judgment (PDF) ↗ Open as a separate page

Headnote

IPC s. 498A (BNS ss. 85-86) · Arrest in cases of cruelty by husband or relatives · CrPC s. 41 and s. 41A · Magistrate's scrutiny of detention

The case, in the Court's words

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The maximum sentence provided under Section 498-A IPC is imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and fine whereas the maximum sentence provided under [...] Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is two years and with fine. [official PDF pp. 1-2]

Held

  1. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. [official PDF p. 3]
  2. We believe that no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-bailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for the police officers to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing, the justification for the exercise of it is quite another. Apart from power to arrest, the police officers must be able to justify the reasons thereof. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. [official PDF p. 6]
  3. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the [...] parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC; (2) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii); [official PDF pp. 17-18]
  4. The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention; (4) The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention; [official PDF p. 18]
  5. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing; (7) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction. [official PDF p. 19]
  6. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine. [official PDF p. 20]

Result

In the result, we allow this appeal, making our aforesaid order dated 31st October, 2013 absolute; with the directions aforesaid. [official PDF p. 21]

Editorial note: subsequent treatment

Editorial note: the directions were set out again in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. (2017) and the Court in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (2018, three-Judge Bench) described them as in consonance with CrPC ss. 41 and 41A and directed investigating officers to be guided by them. They were applied in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2024) and again in Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka (2026) in the context of live-in relationships.

Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana Supreme Court of India · 3 May 2024 · 2024 INSC 369
Case
Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4912 of 2022)
Bench
J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra (judgment by J.B. Pardiwala, J.)
Provisions
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 498A and its Explanation (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, ss. 85 and 86)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 482

Open the judgment (PDF) ↗ Open as a separate page

Headnote

IPC s. 498A (BNS ss. 85-86) · Cruelty: trivial quarrels and mechanical application of the section · General and sweeping allegations in matrimonial prosecution · Quashing under CrPC s. 482 · Comparison of BNS ss. 85 and 86 with IPC s. 498A

The case, in the Court's words

Upon the FIR referred to above being registered, the police carried out the investigation & proceeded to file chargesheet dated 13.10.2021, only against the Appellant herein. A closure report was filed against the remaining 4 accused. [para 9]

Held

  1. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute. [para 25]
  2. We are of the view that the category 7 referred to above should be taken into consideration and applied in a case like the one on hand a bit liberally. If the Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of her husband and his close relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the FIR and the chargesheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence the Court with a view to doing substantial justice should read in between the lines the oblique motive of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter. [para 31]
  3. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and harassment by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary. However, the Police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment. The Police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends. In all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. [para 32]
  4. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. [para 32]
  5. The aforesaid is nothing but verbatim reproduction of Section 498A of the IPC. The only difference is that the Explanation to Section 498A of the IPC, is now by way of a separate provision, i.e., Section 86 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. [para 39]
  6. We request the Legislature to look into the issue as highlighted above taking into consideration the pragmatic realities and consider making necessary changes in Sections 85 and 86 respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, before both the new provisions come into force. [para 40]

Result

In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside. [para 41]

Editorial note: subsequent treatment

Editorial note: the Court compared BNS ss. 85 and 86 with IPC s. 498A in paras 38 to 40. It was cited among decisions on misuse of s. 498A in Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka (2026 INSC 784) and its para 20 was quoted in Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra (2024 INSC 737).

Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana Supreme Court of India · 10 December 2024 · 2024 INSC 953
Case
Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 16239 of 2024 (number blank in the official copy)
Bench
B.V. Nagarathna, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh (judgment by B.V. Nagarathna, J.)
Provisions
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 498A and its Explanation (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, ss. 85 and 86)
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, ss. 3 and 4
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 482

Open the judgment (PDF) ↗ Open as a separate page

Headnote

IPC s. 498A (BNS ss. 85-86) · Meaning of cruelty: Explanation clauses (a) and (b) · Vague and omnibus allegations against husband's relatives · Quashing under CrPC s. 482

The case, in the Court's words

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the material on record, the only question that arises for our consideration is whether FIR No.82 of 2022, dated 01.02.2022, lodged against the appellants herein should be quashed. [para 10]

Held

  1. An offence is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC when a husband or his relative subjects a woman to cruelty, which may result in imprisonment for a term extending up to three years and a fine. The Explanation under Section 498A of the IPC defines “cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498A of the IPC to mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) or (b). [para 15]
  2. The first limb of clause (a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that “cruelty” means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The second limb of clause (a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that cruelty means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. Further, clause (b) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC states that cruelty would also include harassment of the woman where such harassment is to coerce 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. [para 15]
  3. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. [para 18]
  4. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. [para 25]
  5. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. [para 28]
  6. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. [...] In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. [para 29]

Result

We, accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 16.02.2022 in Criminal Petition No.1479 of 2022 filed under Section 482 CrPC. [para 33]

Editorial note: subsequent treatment

Editorial note: followed in Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 INSC 562), which quotes its paragraphs on omnibus allegations against relatives, and cited in Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2025 INSC 803), Mange Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 INSC 962) and Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka (2026 INSC 784).

Dr. Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka Supreme Court of India · 3 August 2026 · 2026 INSC 784
Case
Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2240-2241 of 2026 (number blank in the official copy)
Bench
Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh (judgment by Sanjay Karol, J.)
Provisions
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 498A (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, s. 85)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 482 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s. 528)

Open the judgment (PDF) ↗ Open as a separate page

Headnote

IPC s. 498A (BNS s. 85) · Meaning of 'husband': relationship in the nature of marriage · Live-in relationship and cruelty · Purposive interpretation of a penal provision · Arnesh Kumar safeguards

The case, in the Court's words

The allegation in the FIR is that the appellant had suppressed the factum of his prior marriage, he, along with his family members, had harassed respondent no.2 for dowry and also caused physical injury to her [para 22]

Held

  1. Adding force and life to the cure in accordance with the true intent and accounting for a social change as an aspect for adjudication, would then lead us to the conclusion that if a woman is in a domestic setup even prior to marriage, which obviously, to a certain extent in the urban areas is a reality today, the protection [...] given to married woman should be given to them also. [para 21]
  2. It is held, therefore, that a woman in a “relationship in the nature of marriage” shall be protected under Section 498A, giving the word “husband” a purposive interpretation, keeping in view the reformative, corrective and socially beneficial intent of the Section. [para 21]
  3. Those relationships that are in the nature of marriage and also have the requisite intent to marry are the closest to marriage itself, and it is those relationships that shall be entitled to the protection of this Section. [...] The presence of the intent of the parties shall obviously lie upon the person alleging that the intent was present. In other words, the initial burden of proof would be on the female live-in-partner seeking protection of the law. [para 21]
  4. In view of the above discussion, the application of the section is restricted, keeping in view its penal nature and also a long list of adverse consequences which may accompany such a strict provision. Even with this limited application, the other protections that have been judicially developed against the misuse of this provision should apply to these cases also. [para 21]
  5. (i) Section 498A is held to be applicable to “live-in relationships” that qualify as “relationships in the nature of marriage” with the intent to marry being established as an intrinsic part thereof; (ii) The “live-in relationships” protected by Section 498A, it is stated for ample clarity, are those that are between two consenting adult individuals; (iii) The proposition of law as laid down shall be limited to Section 498A IPC only, and this extended interpretation shall not affect any other provision; [para 23]
  6. The safeguards against arrest and other factors as laid down in Arnesh Kumar supra shall be strictly applied and no person in a relationship in the nature of marriage having been accused of committing cruelty against a woman, being either the live-in partner “in the nature of marriage” or his relative, shall be arrested without preliminary enquiries. [para 23]

Result

This is not a fit case for the proceedings to be quashed. The Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. [para 24]

Editorial note: subsequent treatment

The Bench discusses Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam (2004), notes that a three-Judge Bench approved it in Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015), states that the three-Judge order in Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of M.P. does not lay down a binding precedent on section 498A, and holds that the ingredients listed in U. Suvetha v. State (2009) must give way to a purposive interpretation. It applies the Arnesh Kumar safeguards.

Headnotes are extracts from the Court's own judgments, selected by The Daily Bench for convenience. The selection is not part of the judgments, is not a law report and should not be cited. Rely on the official judgment.