In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on May 13, 2025, acquitted a man in a 26-year-old case of dowry harassment and cruelty, expressing serious concern over the increasing misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in matrimonial disputes. The verdict was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma in the case Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
The Court held that the allegations made against the appellant—originally convicted by the trial court and later by the Allahabad High Court—were vague, generalised, and uncorroborated. It found that the prosecution failed to establish cruelty or dowry demands with credible evidence. The complainant, who had filed the FIR in 1999 after just 12 days of cohabitation, accused her husband of physical and mental cruelty, including causing a miscarriage. However, the Supreme Court noted that no medical evidence was submitted to substantiate such claims.
The Bench observed that Section 498A, meant to safeguard married women from cruelty, is increasingly being misapplied. “The term ‘cruelty’ is subject to rather cruel misuse,” the Court remarked, underlining that allegations must be backed by specific dates, events, and proof, not sweeping accusations.
The Court also criticised the growing trend of naming multiple family members—including aged parents and distant relatives—as accused, without detailing any specific acts of cruelty. Such blanket accusations, it said, dilute the very purpose of protective laws and result in malicious prosecution.
Citing its ruling in Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr., the Court reiterated that criminal law requires a high standard of proof, and vague, emotional claims cannot justify conviction under Section 498A IPC.
This verdict serves as a critical reminder of the importance of due process, objective scrutiny of evidence, and protection against the misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes. The Court’s decision aims to balance the genuine need for women’s protection with safeguards against wrongful prosecution.
