by Jeremy D. Morley
The Supreme Court of India has issued another significant ruling concerning the notorious Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2025 INSC 671].
The Penal Code has recently been renamed as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Section 498A is now renumbered as Sections 85 and 86 of the renamed statute.
Husbands of Indian origin living in or outside India are generally extremely well aware of the dangerous consequences to themselves and their families of being accused by their wives of conduct contrary to Section 498A. They themselves are not able to pursue similar tactics against their wives because the statutes provide such rights only to wives.
Criminal complaints under this and related provisions of India criminal law have for decades often been used by wives to blackmail their husbands into relinquishing their children, their assets or both.
The history of the Chaddha case, spanning 26 years, is astonishing, but the final outcome seems to be sensible.
The parties married in 1998. They lived together for only 12 days. In 1999, the husband brought a case in India for divorce and the wife responded in the same year by filing criminal charges in India against him and his parents under Section 498A. She also asserted claims under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which prohibits the giving or taking of a dowry, Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for “voluntarily causing hurt” and Section 34 of the Penal Code concerning criminal acts done by several people.
In her complaint, the wife alleged an array of abusive conduct, including forced resignation from a teaching position, the appropriation of her salary by her in-laws, forced consumption of narcotics, forced attendance at alcohol-laden parties, and physical violence culminating in a miscarriage. Her claims were not supported by supportive evidence.
Five years later, in 2004, a Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the claim of having voluntarily caused hurt because the wife had not produced any medical evidence or injury report. However, the magistrate convicted the father under both Section 498A and the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to two years of “rigorous imprisonment,” together with a fine. The father appealed and his appeal was denied in the same year.
The father then appealed to the Allahabad High Court but that appeal was not decided until 2018. The High Court peremptorily upheld the lower courts’ rulings but provided no analysis of the case.
The father then appealed to the Supreme Court of India which did not issue a decision for a further 6½ years.
The Supreme Court acquitted the father. It held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process. It lambasted the High Court’s decision but, shockingly, made no reference to the High Court having sat on the case for 14 years. Nor did the Supreme Court explain why its decision was not rendered for another 6½ years.
Specifically, the Supreme Court held that:
“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 (2025) 3 SCC 735.”
Lest it be anticipated that the abuse of Section 498A will now stop because of these cases, it must be noted that the Indian Supreme Court has issued similar statements for the past 20 years, without success. For example,
Accordingly, the use of Section 498A and related gender-based criminal laws in India remains a potent and chilling weapon that is often used by wives in India against their husbands in or outside of India and their husbands’ families.
Country-by-Country Information About Child Abduction and Divorce
(Click to find your country)
IMPORTANT: WE REQUIRE SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR SITUATION OR WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RESPOND.
POTENTIAL CLIENTS SHOULD NOT SEND ANY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION UNTIL SUCH TIME AS AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY A WRITTEN RETAINER AGREEMENT SIGNED BY BOTH THE ATTORNEY AND THE CLIENT. SENDING AN EMAIL DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP OR CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATE THE LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY D. MORLEY TO REPRESENT YOU, REGARDLESS OF THE CONTENT OF SUCH INQUIRY.
Potential clients should not send any confidential information until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established by a written retainer agreement signed by both the attorney and the client. Sending an email does not create an attorney-client relationship or contractually obligate The Law Office of Jeremy D. Morley to represent you, regardless of the content of such inquiry.
Copyright © 2025 Jeremy Morley | Website Designed by MozWebMedia