Judicial Responses against the Misuse of Gender Specific Laws relating to Marital Cruelty: A Critical Study

Paper Code: AIJACLAV07RP2026

Category: Research Paper

Date of Publication: Sep 10, 2026

Citation: Ms. Simran Chauhan, 6, AIJACLA, 07, 51-57 (2026)

Author Details

* Ms. Simran Chauhan

* Ph.D. Scholar, Lovely Professional University, Punjab

Abstract

Judicial Responses against the Misuse of Gender Specific Laws relating to Marital Cruelty: A Critical Study

* Ms. Simran Chauhan

* Ph.D. Scholar, Lovely Professional University, Punjab

Abstract

The gender specific anti-cruelty legislation was enacted to protect the vulnerable women of the society from the social evils like dowry related violence and domestic abuse. In contemporary era, this conventional framework is facing a unique paradox. In recent years, instances of procedural circumvention and strategic misuse are reported. This situation raises a significant question- whether the rigid statutory framework is undesignedly hindering the path of substantive justice. This paper explores how the judiciary is dealing with the matters of misuse and the cases where a male is vulnerable and a victim of abuse.

The study conducts a qualitative judicial audit of landmark judgements from Supreme Court of India and various High Courts between 2021 to 2025. It explicitly examines how the judiciary has been becoming more vigilant regarding the vexatious litigations and how the judiciary is changing its attitude to more of a neutral approach in scrutiny of criminal allegations. In addition, this study analyses how the new code BNSS code address these challenges.

The results point to the shift toward the direction of substantive justice, in which the judiciary is driven by the desire to address the emergence of cases that lack a factual basis and instead rely on the evidentiary merit. The paper has ended with a suggestion that to have justice really accessible in the contemporary era, the legal system needs to shift to a balanced jurisprudence that stops the vulnerable without infringing the basic right to a fair trial of the accused..

Keywords: Gender Neutrality, Gender justice, Access to justice, misuse of Cruelty laws, Vexatious litigation, Judicial stand.

Paper Code: AIJACLAV07RP2026

INTRODUCTION

There is a historic change in the Indian criminal justice system that is being carried out through the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. At the heart of this shift is the substitution of the formerly existing Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which was a clause specifically meant to combat matrimonial cruelty with Sections 85 and 86 of the BNS. Nevertheless, the underlying problem is the need to balance the interests of the instantaneous protection of victims with the prevention of procedural abuse is a contentious issue of law. The main question of the research is the so-called Paradox of Protection- where gender-specific protection to empower the vulnerable is being misused as a tool of strategic harassment. This, in turn, gives rise to a second crisis: it prevents the “Access to Justice” of the accused who suffer unjustified social and legal trauma, and at the same time, it contributes to the erosion of the credibility of the real vulnerable, whose real needs are lost in a morass of empty claims. The main aim of the study is to critically assess how judicial interpretation of this law is changing in consideration of changing jurisprudence of matrimonial relationships in India and to prevent the primary and secondary consequences of the misuse of this law.

This study adopts a two-step approach; first qualitative thematic audit of judicial judgements passed by Supreme Court and various High courts (2021- 2025) is conducted. Second, a Comparative Statutory Analysis is made between the absence of substantive change in Section 86 of the BNS and the procedural safety valves presented in the BNSS. It is by combining these new instruments of the law with judicial corrective jurisprudence that this paper will attempt to come up with a moderated approach to justice that will not only safeguard the existence of a just human society but also the sanctity of the matrimonial institution.

JURISPRUDENTIAL FOUNDATIONS OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE

In the modern legal context, to define justice, one has to shift to Substantive Fairness as opposed to Formal Equality. Although formal equality implies an equal application of law, substantive fairness acknowledges the fact that systemic injustice may be achieved by a mechanistic application of gender-specific protection. One of the fundamental aspects of this fairness is the Presumption of Innocence; which is usually denied when the fact of registration of an FIR under the BNS in Section 85 causes procedural trauma to the accused without prior examination. In order to preserve this balance, the judiciary has tipped toward the doctrine of threshold scrutiny, which is based on the court inquiry and empowering CAW cells earlier and now FWC to conduct the inquiry to guard against the misuse of the process. This is done with the intention that a trial should not be the punishment per se. Through the powers that are now established under the BNSS, the courts serve as a critical filter, determining at the very beginning litigations that are either frivolous, vexatious, or oppressed by oblique motive. It is this judicial watchfulness that is vital to the continued existence of a decent human society, and which will see to it that the particularity of law is not transformed into an instrument of legal terrorism.

THEMATIC AUDIT OF JUDICIAL RESPONSES (2021–2025)

The analysis is logically subdivided into three main themes, each of which reflects a specific jurisprudential position of the courts in striving to strike a balance between protecting victims and the avoidance of the misuse of the law. The first theme is the Inherent Power to Prevent Abuse of Process, which considers the role of the court as a filter of the procedure. The second theme is the Scrutiny of “Omnibus Allegations” that deals with the tendency of over-implicating the extended family of the husband. Lastly, the third theme is the move towards Evidentiary Merit and Gender Neutrality, which evaluates how the judiciary is moving towards focusing on factual truth rather than categorical gender-based presumptions to ensure that “Access to Justice” is achievable to those who are really vulnerable

Threshold Scrutiny and the Prevention of Abuse of Process

There are various judgements in which judiciary has highlighted that the allegations are so vague and general that it lacks substantive foundations and does not constitute the offence of cruelty still the FIRs got registered. So, court took the stand to quash the FIRs in such cases. In a very recent ruling of Sanjay D. Jain v. State of Maharashtra, it was stated-

“Vague and general allegations cannot lead to forming of a prima facie case………………. grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.”

Court emphasised that to get a case registered the allegations must be backed with evidences and must not be general and vague in nature. It further made clear that the intensity of the cruelty should be of grave nature that it impacts the mental or physical health of the victim to such an extent that drives her to commit suicide or causes grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. And anything less than this should not be considered cruelty.

In the case of Digambar v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that one must state the instances and details of the incidents only saying that cruelty has been committed without any particulars would not constitute the offence under 498A of IPC. Further, in the same case court raises concern about the misuse of law by highlighting that this case was file after the filing of divorce case only to pressurize the husband to give divorce.

There are plethora of cases where court has shown vigilance to protect the abuse of legal machinery and protect the liberty of innocents. In another case of Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh courts warned of abusing this provision to seek the compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife or out of personal vendetta. Similarly, in the case of Shobhit Kumar Mittal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, court quashed the FIR because the allegations were vague and general statements and even not to grave. In many other cases court quashed the FIRs while stating concern over the misuse as judiciary cannot be a mute spectator of the misuse of the protective legislation. Court cannot be the mute spectator of such misuse

Omnibus Allegations and protection of the extended family

One of the themes of modern criminal jurisprudence is the judicial warning against the mechanical arrest into matrimonial disputes of the extended family of the husband. Many a case has pointed out that the cognizable and non bailable nature of marital cruelty legislation is often abused to name elderly in-laws and distant relatives likes sisters live abroad for decades, as “accused” without assigning specific overt acts to them. This practice has gained momentum is recent years but has been pointed out by judiciary a long ago in the year 2012, when Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgement of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P, clearly stated that large scale inclusion of all close relatives of the husband with stating their clear role in committing cruelty is a clear abuse of process of law. This omnibus policy not only undermines the procedural rights of the relatives but also slows down the judicial machinery in favour of actual victims.

In a recent case of Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, it was held that casual naming of in-law’s family members without any specific role or overt act or distinct instance of cruelty cannot be treated as complaint particularly is marital disputes where complainant tries to implicate the entire family or as many members of the family as possible.

In the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, court stated-

“A mere reference to the names of family members…………………. cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law”.

Same judicial vigilance can be observed in the above stated case that judiciary is identifying the trend that while filing a complaint under 498A women tries to implicate the whole family. and suggested that such generalised and sweeping allegations cannot be the basis of criminal prosecution unless supported with details of the instance, time, date etc. and also suggested that courts should exercise caution to prevent the abuse of legal process and harassment of innocent family members.

The same issue was being highlighted in the case of Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, where Supreme Court cautioned the judiciary to take the appropriate measures at the earliest in the cases where the in-laws are implicated but there is no specific role is attributes to them. Because general and omnibus allegations do not warrant the prosecution under 498A and it be unjust for them to go through the trial which is prima facie vague.

Guidelines to protect the rights of the husband

With the rise in the instances of abuse of 85 BNS/ 498A IPC for various purposes the judiciary have begun crafting procedural “safety valves” that function as quasi-legislative filters. Recently, the Allahabad High Court while deciding the case of Mukesh Bansal v. State of UP, raised the concern of cruelty law being misused and issued some guidelines with the intent to prevent such abuse of legal machinery in matrimonial disputes. The issued guidelines mandate a cooling period of two months before making any arrest or taking any coercive action in the complaints of 498A cases. During this period the complaint is forwarded to the Family Welfare Committee (FWC). Where the Committee will summon both the parties to negotiate and conduct the inquiry. Also, the FWC can call up to four elder embers of the family from each side. If a settlement is reached during this period, then the concerned judicial officer can take the appropriate action and even quash the FIR. The members of FWC will receive special training from DLSA. This kind of initiative demonstrates a change in a Punitive Model of justice to a Restorative Model of justice. The Judiciary is trying to maintain the Social Fabric of the family unit by emphasizing mediation and “fact and evidence centric diligence” over the instant FIR registration. But in the critical view, it can also be stated that judiciary is doing the procedural protection that legislature is expected to provide.

In the year 2025, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to endorse these guidelines in the case of Shivangi Bansal v Sahib Bansal. These guidelines are now the binding precedent under Article 141 and gives national authority to the safeguards and creates a responsibility on law enforcement and lower courts in enforcing the same.

THE NEW PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS

The critical examination of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) shows that there is a significant absence of substantive innovation. Although the history of abuse in the past several decades is documented, the legislature has preserved the wording of Section 498A IPC in Sections 85 and 86 of the BNS without any changes. This Substantive Stasis is an opportunity lost to update the definition of cruelty.

Nonetheless, the BNSS does provide important procedural safeguards which serve as a corrective to this stasis. The legislature institutionalization a critical administrative obstacle by mandating to obtain the prior permission of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) to make an arrest of an offender who has committed a crime that is punishable by a sentence of less than three years. This change will make sure that the procedural trauma which can be applied as a weapon of tactical advantage is reduced at the level of investigation despite the fact that the definition of the crime has not been changed yet.

Moreover, the BSA transforms the evidentiary terrain by replacing traditional verbal testimony or physical evidence with digital ones. Such focus on objective validation functions as a unbiased adjudicator, which permits a shift to a merit based evidentiary criterion that can discriminate between actual victimhood and manipulation. Nevertheless, the most effective protection against the stagnation of the BNS is the active judicial oversight that has been illustrated in the 2021-2025 audit. In this, without substantive legislative change, the judiciary has intervened to offer a Corrective Jurisprudence, exercising the powers that remain inherent, to act as a last resort of fairness. The courts have successfully dealt with the “Paradox of Protection, which the BNS itself could not overcome, by persistently applying a stringent “fact-centric inquiry and to stifle omnibus allegations in their early stages. Finally, the pledge of the judiciary to substantive fairness rather than formal equality is what turn the law into a potentially repressive tool instead of an emancipatory one towards the truly defenceless.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

The shift of the IPC to the BNS has brought to light a serious conflict between the need to have protective legislation and the endemic risks of its procedural abuse. The Indian judiciary is no longer a mere onlooker to matrimonial litigation as this study has shown through a five-year judicial audit; it has now become a proactive censor against the misuse of law. It is not just a question of administrative efficiency, but it is a necessity to the integrity of Naya (Justice). This change has its origins in a long-standing judicial consciousness, with the landmark Judgments in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, which had raised the alarm over the misuse of anti-cruelty laws and regulated the mechanical arrest, and the Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, which had infamously termed the abuse of anti-cruelty statutes as Legal Terrorism

By permitting the legal machinery to be put into motion by so-called omnibus allegations and so-called vexatious claims, it causes a secondary crisis i.e., weakening the credibility of the so called actual vulnerable. Any false or hyped complaint lodged due to tactical advantage literally silences the voices of real victims who really require the state protection. Hence, the courts and the police will be obliged to consider the quality of evidence, the forensic and digital truth, and not the gender of the person filing the complaint. At this direction of gender-neutral evidentiary norm, the juridical system not only cushions the accused against unnecessary trauma but also reinstates the sanctity of the law to the people against whom it was intended to provide protection. This judicial vigilance, however, in the last analysis, helps the institution of marriage to survive and helps to maintain the social texture of a fair civilization, in which the law is a refuge of the oppressed and not an instrument of the strategically favoured.

Consequently, it is proposed that since the language of Section 86 of the BNS has not changed in its terms, the legislature should add an Explanation or Proviso to Section 86 expressly stating that cruelty should not be interpreted to include ordinary matrimonial bickering, wear and tear of married life and trivial discords. In addition, mandatory sensitization programs of the police personnel that work specifically in matrimonial desks must be done at regular intervals of time. This training will have to go beyond a protectionist-only bias towards a fact-based diligence model. The members should be educated to recognize the signs of Tactical Litigation - like unexplained delays, over-implication of distant relatives, etc. - so that the FWC acts as an actual filter of investigations and not a kind of post office of complaints.

REFERENCES

Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence (Lexis Nexis, 27th edn, 2019)

Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (Lexis Nexis, Claasic edn, 2025)

P K.N. Chandrasekaran, RV Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure (Eastern Book Company, 7th edn, 2021)

Ravi, ‘Critical Analysis of Right to a fair trial under Indian law’ [2023] 15(1) Report and Opinion 18

Rastogi P, Shetty BSK, Palimar V, ‘Legal support in dealing with dowry menace: A double-edged sword!’ 2009 (1) Journal of South India Medicolegal Association 58

Shetty B and others, ‘Legal Terrorism in Domestic Violence– An Indian Outlook’ [2012] Medico Legal Journal 33

Mall R & Dr. Singh S, ‘The "Misuse" Narrative vs. Substantive justice: Deconstructing Section 498A’ (2026) 6(3) IJLR 335

Dave A and others, ‘In search of justice and care: how women survivors of violence navigate the Indian criminal justice system’ (2017) 1(1) Journal of Gender-Based Violence 79

Ghosh B, ‘How does the legal framework protect victims of dowry and domestic violence in India? A critical review’ 2013 18(4) Aggression and Violent Behaviour 409