Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) 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.]
CHAPTER XXI
OF DEFAMATION
CHAPTER XXI
OF DEFAMATION
Section 498A, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 85 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 10
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 198 Prosecution for offences against marriage
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 198 Prosecution for offences against marriage
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 198 Prosecution for offences against marriage
- Crpc 1973 s. 198 Prosecution for offences against marriage
- Domestic Voilence act s. 5 Duties of police officers, service providers and Magistrate
- Domestic Voilence act s. 31 Penalty for breach of protection order by respondent
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act s. 5 Duties of police officers, service providers and Magistrate
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act s. 31 Penalty for breach of protection order by respondent
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence s. 5 Duties of police officers, service providers and Magistrate
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence s. 31 Penalty for breach of protection order by respondent
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
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: Arrest in 498A cases is not automatic; s.41/41A procedure applies because the offence is in the <=7-year class.
-
Major Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To sustain a conviction under Section 304B IPC for dowry death, the prosecution must establish all five essential ingredients with specific emphasis on proving that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand 'soon before her death'. The expression 'soon before her death' requires a proximity test with a material temporal and causal link (proximate and live link) between the alleged harassment and the death. Without clear and credible evidence of such harassment inflicted shortly before death, the conviction cannot be sustained even if the death occurs within seven years of marriage and the victim dies by abnormal circumstances. Evidence from interested witnesses (close family members) alone, without independent corroboration despite opportunity to secure such corroboration, is insufficient to discharge the prosecution's burden of proof. The absence of conviction under Section 498A IPC (cruelty) in the same case further supports reasonable doubt regarding the essential ingredient of dowry-related harassment.
On this section: Cruelty by husband or in-laws; the trial court and High Court acquitted all accused under this section, which the Supreme Court noted as indicative of insufficient proof of dowry-related cruelty, thereby undermining the Section 304B conviction.
-
Gurdip Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecutions under Section 304B IPC for dowry death, the prosecution bears the mandatory burden of proving all five statutory ingredients as matters of fact before the mandatory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act applies. The seven-year marriage requirement is a crucial ingredient that must be established through credible evidence, not presumption. Absent proof of this ingredient, the conviction under Section 304B cannot be sustained, though conviction under Section 498A for cruelty may still stand if the evidence establishes harassment and cruelty by the husband or relative.
On this section: Cruelty by husband or relative towards married woman; no requirement of seven-year marriage period or dowry connection; conviction confirmed in this case
-
Atmaram vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To convict a husband or relative of a woman under Sections 306 and 498A IPC, or to draw a presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, there must be evidence establishing that such husband or relative committed cruelty of the nature described in clauses (a) or (b) of the Explanation to Section 498A IPC. Mere misbehavior, ordinary domestic discord, or unmet expectations within domestic life do not constitute legally cognizable cruelty. The court must carefully assess whether the conduct alleged was of such a nature as objectively and reasonably likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, not merely that it affected a hypersensitive victim. Where the evidence fails to establish such cruelty with reasonable certainty, conviction cannot rest on presumption alone, and must be set aside.
On this section: Husband or relative subjecting woman to cruelty - central provision; court analyzed the Explanation to determine if appellant's conduct fell within clauses (a) or (b); concluded that while misbehavior may have occurred, it did not amount to cruelty of such nature as to drive woman to commit suicide
-
Undavali Narayana Rao vs State of A. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A husband or family member's continuous state of harassment and cruelty, involving demands for dowry and property in violation of settlement agreements, combined with threats and forced separation of the wife, constitutes 'cruelty' under Section 498A IPC when the totality of circumstances, including hurried disposal of the body and property settlement to suppress prosecution, supports the inference that such cruelty drove the woman to commit suicide. The provision does not require proof of intent to cause death (which would be necessary under Section 306 IPC) but only willful conduct that is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to suicide. A prior reconciliation agreement does not provide defense against charges of renewed harassment in violation of that agreement.
On this section: Core provision: Defines the offense of subjecting a woman to cruelty by husband or his relatives. The Court extensively analyzed the statutory definition of 'cruelty' in two clauses: (a) willful conduct likely to drive woman to suicide or cause grave injury, and (b) harassment for dowry demands. The Court applied this section to conclude that the appellant's continued demands for property and dowry, threats by his mother, and psychological harassment constituted 'cruelty' sufficient to sustain conviction despite the 1990 reconciliation agreement.
-
Shakson Belthissor vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An FIR and charge sheet under Section 498A IPC can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC where the allegations, even if taken at face value and accepted in entirety, do not disclose the essential ingredients of cruelty as defined in Explanation (a) or (b) of Section 498A. Specifically, mere cessation of financial support, lack of affection, marital estrangement, or disputes arising from the use of dowry money do not constitute 'cruelty' under Section 498A unless accompanied by: (i) conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause grave injury to her life, limb, or health (Explanation a), or (ii) harassment with a view to coercing unlawful demands for property or on account of failure to meet such demands (Explanation b). The absence of either ingredient renders the prosecution fundamentally baseless and subject to quashing.
On this section: Core statutory provision defining offence of cruelty by husband or relatives. Court analyzed both Explanation (a) concerning conduct likely to drive woman to suicide or cause grave injury, and Explanation (b) concerning harassment with view to coercing unlawful demands or failure to meet such demands. Court found neither explanation satisfied on facts.
-
Sundar Babu vs State of Tamil Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal proceedings initiated under Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 that are manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance due to private and personal grudge, as evidenced by unexplained delay in filing the complaint, the complainant's subsequent divorce and remarriage, and the overall factual circumstances indicating false implication, can be quashed by the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.
On this section: Offence of cruelty by husband or his relatives towards a married woman; the section was invoked in the complaint filed against the appellants.
-
Ushaben vs Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a complaint alleges offences under both Section 498A IPC (cruelty - Chapter XXA) and Section 494 IPC (bigamy - Chapter XX), police can legally investigate the complaint as a whole without being fettered by the requirement of complaint by aggrieved person under Section 198 CrPC. This requirement applies only to the stage of court cognizance, not to police investigation. The requirement of complaint by aggrieved person under Section 198 CrPC is a procedural requirement for court cognizance under Section 190(1)(a), but does not restrict police investigation when the complaint alleges cognizable offences like Section 498A which can be investigated on police report under Section 198-A.
On this section: Offence of cruelty by husband or his relatives. Court noted this falls under Chapter XXA and is governed by Section 198-A CrPC which permits police report, not just complaint by aggrieved person.
-
Achin Gupta vs The State of Haryana
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
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
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
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
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
-
Latika Sehgal vs Raj Sehgal
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
-
Ghanshyam Soni vs State (govt. of Nct of Delhi)
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.
-
Sumit Arora vs State Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When both parties to a matrimonial dispute have voluntarily settled their differences through an amicable settlement deed, all financial obligations have been fulfilled, the complainant has no objection to quashing, and continuing with criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose but only create further acrimony, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) to quash the FIR in the interest of justice, particularly in family matters.
On this section: Charge of cruelty by husband or his relatives; primary charge in matrimonial dispute FIR
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… PC Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.9780 of 2022. The allegations levelled by the petitioner in the complaint case were of offences under Section 498A, 325 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In fact, the petitioner had arrayed ten persons in the complaint; her husband, his parents, two brothers of his father, their wives and three children of three brothers, totalling ten. The Magistrate after perusing the …
-
… The two appellants, mother-in-law and husband, respectively, of the deceased were jointly tried[4]( page-0-3) for commission of offences punishable under Section 304-B and Section 498A, Indian Penal Code[5]( page-0-4) . The Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Coimbatore[6]( page-0-5) , vide its judgment and order dated 25th May, 2012, acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 304-B, IPC but convicted them under Section 498-A, thereof. While the <span id="page-0-5"></span><span …
-
… Since the factual matrix is the same for all of these cases, these appeals are being considered together for disposal. 3. The Appellant's case arises from FIR No. 0032/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh, for alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code[1]( page-2-0), along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. This FIR was lodged on 23.01.2024 by the Appellant (the brother of the deceased, Ms. Shahida Bano). It states that Shahida was married on 07.02.2022 to Accused No.1 , Sami Khan (husband of the deceased). …
Questions about Section 498A
What have the courts held on Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code?
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (02 Jul 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Arrest in 498A cases is not automatic; s.41/41A procedure applies because the offence is in the <=7-year class. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 14 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 498A, section 498A IPC, section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 498a in bns and ipc 498a punishment. 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 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
10 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 85 (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, commonly called domestic cruelty or cruelty by husband, and cited as IPC 498A, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.