SC Flags Misuse of Dowry Law but Declines Amending it to Ensure Women's Safety

By: WE staff | Wednesday, 16 April 2025

• Supreme Court concedes dowry law abuse is possible declines to modify Section 498A IPC / Section 85 BNS
• Asserts law is important to safeguard women against cruelty

The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the dowry harassment legislation (Section 498A IPC/Section 85 BNS) is used against men and their relatives. But it refused to change the law, reiterating its significance in ensuring women's safety against cruelty in marriage. The court commented that a few instances of misuse of the legislation cannot be taken to upset the larger proportion of prevailing abuse, and reiterated that every case must be evaluated on merit.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday recognized that some men and their relatives might have been subjected to false dowry harassment cases under Section 498A IPC (now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita). But it held that this cannot be a reason for changing a law intended to safeguard women from cruelty in matrimonial homes.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh said, "Just because there are cases of misuse, it cannot be presumed that women are harassing their husbands and in-laws. In most cases, it is the women who get abused." The court reiterated that every case had to be decided on its merits.

The observation was made in reaction to a petition moved by NGO 'Janshruti', which requested the Court to render dowry harassment laws gender-neutral and incorporate safeguards such as mandatory investigations and mediation prior to arrest. The Court, however, insisted that complaints of abuse should be dealt with on a case-to-case basis, rather than through blanket changes in writ jurisdiction.

Responding to suggestions of amending Section 498A IPC and Section 85 of the BNS, the Supreme Court held that these are the exclusive domains of the legislature. "It is for the representatives of 142 crore people in Parliament to determine the form of the legislation," noted the bench, further adding that constitutional courts could only step in when there is a legal vacuum.

To the petitioner's appeal to strictly enforce a 60-day timeline for determining maintenance cases, Justice Surya Kant raised the question of practicality, inquiring, do you know how many more civil courts and magistrates would be required for this. Who will construct the infrastructure and hire staff?

Rejecting the PIL, the Court held that the establishment of more courts is subject to the financial strength of individual states, which can proceed in coordination with the concerned High Courts to hasten such cases.