Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty
Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 85, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 498A Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 4
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Draft stage of translated version) s. 219
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Draft stage of translated version) s. 220
- s. 86 Cruelty defined
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita s. 220 Prosecution of offences under section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Punishment for subjecting a married woman to cruelty. | Imprisonment for 3 years and fine. | Cognizable if information relating to the commission of the offence is given to an officer in charge of a police station by the person aggrieved by the offence or by any person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption or if there is no such relative, by any public servant belonging to such class or category as may be notified by the State Government in this behalf. | Non-bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 498A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Arrest is not automatic for offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. Police must record satisfaction of the conditions in section 41 CrPC (and serve the section 41A notice where applicable) before arresting, including in 498A cases. Magistrates must scrutinise the need for detention.
On this section: BNS 85 is the offence-creating successor to IPC 498A (heading match). Arnesh's arrest holding applies to investigations of this offence.
-
Achin Gupta vs The State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 498A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In matrimonial disputes, courts must scrutinize the FIR closely to determine if it is instituted with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, even if it ostensibly discloses a cognizable offence.
On this section: Applied to evaluate if the alleged conduct constitutes criminal cruelty or domestic discord.
-
Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 498A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The essential ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC are: (1) the existence of a live link or nexus between the abetment and the suicide; (2) the active role of instigation or aiding on the part of the accused; (3) the intention to aid or instigate the commission of suicide; (4) the absence of any severing of these constituents. Remoteness of culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide falls short of the offense of abetment. Contiguity, continuity, culpability, and complicity of indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Mere domestic discord, absence of support, or property disputes, without active sustained incitement with direct causative content, cannot sustain a conviction for abetment of suicide. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the accused's conduct was the direct, proximate, and compelling cause for the victim's suicide, and if the victim appears hypersensitive to ordinary domestic discord not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to commit suicide, the accused cannot be held guilty. The court must be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances to determine whether cruelty meted out to the victim in fact induced the suicide, and the absence of complaints to police, civil suits, or evidence of specific threats substantially weakens the prosecution's case.
On this section: Provides the definition of 'cruelty' for purposes of Section 113A IEA. The court examined whether the conduct of the accused fell within the definition of cruelty (willful conduct likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury, or harassment with unlawful demand for property). The court found no such willful conduct or harassment proven.
-
Hiral P. Harsora vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora
Decided under Indian Penal Code 498A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The words 'adult male person' in the definition of 'respondent' in Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are unconstitutional as they violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The restriction creates an arbitrary classification lacking intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the Act's stated object of protecting women from domestic violence of any kind. A gender-based and age-based restriction cannot serve the purpose of a beneficial statute designed to protect women from violence perpetrated by any person within a domestic relationship or shared household. The words 'adult male' must be deleted from Section 2(q) through application of the severability doctrine, leaving the remainder of the Act intact to achieve its constitutional purpose. The proviso to Section 2(q) becomes otiose and is also rendered void upon deletion of these words.
On this section: The Court noted that criminal law already addresses domestic violence through Section 498A, and the 2005 Act was enacted to provide additional civil remedies not available in ordinary civil courts.
-
Rajinder Singh vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 498A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In dowry death prosecutions under Section 304B IPC, once the prosecution establishes that: (a) the victim died within 7 years of marriage under circumstances otherwise than normal, (b) the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before death, the court must invoke the mandatory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act that the accused caused the dowry death. The 'soon before her death' requirement is satisfied when there is proximate connection between the harassment and death, determined on case-by-case basis. Circumstantial evidence, including conduct showing consciousness of guilt (such as hasty cremation), combined with forensic evidence and credible witness testimony, can establish dowry death beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to explain incriminating facts within special knowledge (such as presence of pesticide or hasty cremation) permits adverse inference under Section 106 of Evidence Act.
On this section: Cruelty by husband or relative towards woman with intent to cause harm. Applied to convict Rajinder Singh for harassment of wife in connection with dowry demand.
-
Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade
Decided under Indian Penal Code 498A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The undefined term 'relative' in the proviso to Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not gender-restricted and includes female relatives of the husband or male partner. Therefore, an aggrieved wife or female can file a complaint against female relatives of her husband or male partner under the Act, and such female relatives can be made respondents in domestic violence proceedings.
On this section: Cruelty by husband provision, under which FIR was registered following the June 2007 assault incident
-
Sanjeeta Das vs Tapan Kumar Moahnty
Decided under Indian Penal Code 498A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Hindu marriage can be dissolved only on the grounds enumerated in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. No court has jurisdiction to dissolve a Hindu marriage on the basis of the consent of the parties de hors the grounds enumerated in Section 13 of the Act, unless the consenting parties proceed under Section 13B of the Act. The law does not permit the purchase of a decree of divorce for consideration, with or without the consent of the other side.
On this section: Offense of cruelty by husband or his relatives. Order mentioned criminal proceedings under this section initiated by appellant against respondent.
-
Ghanshyam Soni vs State (govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Decided under Indian Penal Code 498A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC, the relevant date is the date of filing the complaint or initiating criminal proceedings, not the date of taking cognizance by the Magistrate.
On this section: Allegations of cruelty and criminal breach of trust in a matrimonial context.
-
Ram Pyarey vs The State of Uttar Pradesh Home Department Station House Officer
Decided under Indian Penal Code 498A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, the court cannot invoke the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act without first establishing cogent evidence of cruelty or harassment. The presumptive language in Section 113A ('may presume') is permissive, not mandatory, and requires a foundation of direct evidence of aiding, instigating, or encouraging the suicide. The absence of such cogent evidence renders the presumption inapplicable, and the accused must be acquitted.
On this section: Cruelty to a married woman - The appellant was convicted under this section. The court examined whether cruelty was established against the appellant specifically.
-
Sudeep Chatterjee vs The State of Bihar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 498A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Conditions for anticipatory bail must be reasonable, practicable, and directed towards ensuring a fair trial/investigation; onerous conditions that make the grant of bail illusory or impossible to perform are legally unsustainable.
On this section: Substantive offence alleged (cruelty by husband/relatives).
-
Buddhadeb Saha vs The State of West Bengal
Decided under Indian Penal Code 498A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a case of dowry death under Section 304B IPC, chemical examination of viscera is not mandatory. When a woman dies soon after marriage under suspicious circumstances following harassment for dowry, and there is evidence of unnatural death (such as post-mortem findings consistent with poisoning), the court can presume under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act that the person subjected to such harassment caused the dowry death. The absence of positive identification of poison in the viscera report is not fatal to the prosecution case if there is other evidence of unnatural death and the delay in forwarding samples can explain the negative report. Circumstantial evidence combined with the mandatory presumption under Section 113B can sustain a conviction for dowry death.
On this section: Cruelty to a woman by husband or his relatives. Applied to convict appellants for harassment and cruelty to Tuli Shah for dowry demand. Sentence: 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000 each.
-
Paul vs The State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 498A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act amounts to culpable homicide and falls within any of the four clauses of Section 300 IPC, and the accused fails to establish that the case falls within any of the five exceptions enumerated in Section 300 IPC, the offence constitutes murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. The burden on the accused to prove exceptions is by preponderance of probability, but the prosecution burden to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt never shifts. An accused cannot escape the consequences of an act attracting the ingredients of murder by merely pointing to Section 304 IPC. The fact that a false case is set up by the accused does not deprive him of the right to establish that the case falls within exceptions to murder, but such exceptions must be supported by evidence on record. In cases of throttling resulting in death, the presence of injuries on the neck and other parts of the body, combined with the absence of credible explanation from the accused regarding what transpired in the privacy of the bedroom, establishes murder beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Cruelty by husband or his relatives; court noted that acquittal under this section does not negate the murder conviction
-
Vaishali Abhimanyu Joshi vs Nansaheb Gopal Joshi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 498A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a suit between licensor and licensee for recovery of possession of immovable property is cognizable by a Small Causes Court under Section 26(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (as amended by Maharashtra Act 24 of 1984), the counter-claim filed by the defendant seeking residence rights under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is fully entertainable by the Small Causes Court, as the 'non obstante' clause in Section 26(1) overrides the jurisdictional limitations in Schedule II (Item 11), and Section 26 of the DV Act 2005 explicitly permits reliefs under Sections 18-22 to be sought in any legal proceeding before a civil court, including Small Causes Courts.
On this section: Cited as criminal provision addressing domestic violence; DV Act 2005 created civil remedy to supplement this criminal provision
-
ROHITH R vs NORTH WOMEN PS
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Anticipatory bail may be granted in matrimonial disputes where the offences are triable by a Magistrate and custodial interrogation is not shown to be absolutely indispensable, provided strict conditions are imposed to protect the investigation.
On this section: Cruelty by husband/relatives and criminal intimidation.
-
Latika Sehgal vs Raj Sehgal
Decided under Indian Penal Code 498A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In transfer applications relating to civil suits arising from matrimonial disputes, while the convenience of the wife is generally preferred, it is not an absolute rule. The court must balance the hardship and convenience of all parties involved, considering factors such as age, health, distance, and the nature of the litigation. In civil suits, the physical presence of parties is not required at every hearing, which reduces the burden of travel. When competing hardships exist and no medical evidence is provided to substantiate claims of severe health conditions, the court may dismiss the transfer application.
On this section: Criminal complaint filed by applicant No. 1 against respondent for cruelty by husband or his relatives; accused was later discharged
-
Ajay Kr. Ghoshal Etc vs State of Bihar
Decided under Indian Penal Code 498A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power to order retrial under Section 386(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an exceptional power to be exercised only when the appellate court is satisfied that: (a) the trial was undertaken by a court lacking jurisdiction, or (b) the trial was vitiated by serious illegality or irregularity occasioning failure of justice, or (c) there was a misconception of the nature of proceedings such that there was no real trial. Mere procedural lapses or irregularities in investigation or conduct of trial, without demonstrable miscarriage of justice, are insufficient to order retrial. The appellate court must independently evaluate evidence and arrive at its own conclusions on guilt or innocence rather than remitting to trial court merely because procedural defects exist. De novo trial is a last resort remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances and must be guided by the demand of justice, balancing the accused's right to fair and speedy trial against societal interest in prosecution of serious crimes.
On this section: Cruelty against woman by husband or relatives - charged against appellants
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 85
What have the courts held on Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (02 Jul 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 498A, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: BNS 85 is the offence-creating successor to IPC 498A (heading match). Arnesh's arrest holding applies to investigations of this offence. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 14 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2026.
Is Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Cognizable if information relating to the commission of the offence is given to an officer in charge of a police station by the person aggrieved by the offence or by any person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption or if there is no such relative, by any public servant belonging to such class or category as may be notified by the State Government in this behalf. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Magistrate of the first class.
How do I find court cases under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 85, section 85 BNS, section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 85 in ipc and bns 85b in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (02 Jul 2014).
What should I read with Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, commonly called 498a, domestic cruelty or cruelty by husband, and cited as BNS 85, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.