Don’t Let 498A Linger Post-Divorce — ‘Law Must Prevent Misuse, Not Prolong Bitterness’: “Supreme Court to Trial Courts

“Once the marital relationship has ended… continuation of criminal proceedings serves no legitimate purpose”, Supreme Court, in a decisive intervention, quashed dowry harassment proceedings against a father-in-law whose son’s marriage had ended years earlier, warning that the criminal law must not be weaponised to “prolong bitterness” once a matrimonial dispute is over.

In Mange Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another, a Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan invoked the extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to wipe the slate clean for the appellant, setting aside FIR No. 58 of 2019 under Sections 498A and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, along with the charge sheet.

The case had its genesis in a marriage solemnised under the Special Marriage Act in December 2017. Discord surfaced within two years, prompting the wife to leave the matrimonial home and attend counselling at the Mahila Police Station in Jabalpur. On 2 June 2019, both sides agreed to remarry as per Hindu rites. Yet, a month later, she lodged an FIR alleging that on that very date, her father-in-law had slapped her at Jabalpur Railway Station, demanded ₹5 lakh dowry (later allegedly raised to ₹10 lakh), and threatened to ruin her life.

What struck the Court was the delay and the silence at the time of counselling. “This conduct is wholly irreconcilable with the allegations that were subsequently made,” Justice Nagarathna observed, noting that the FIR was filed only after the husband had initiated divorce proceedings.

The marital bond was formally severed by a decree dated 24 August 2021. Against this backdrop, the Court found little justification to keep alive a prosecution that “emanates solely from the erstwhile matrimonial relationship”. Quoting from Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2025) 3 SCC 735, the Bench cautioned: “Family members of the husband ought not to be unnecessarily roped into criminal proceedings… criminal law is not to be deployed as an instrument of harassment.”

The judgment drew on a line of precedents — Mala Kar, Arun Jain, Ramawatar, Gian Singh, and Naushey Ali — where prosecutions arising out of dissolved marriages were quashed to “advance the cause of complete justice”. The guiding principle, the Court reiterated, is that “the law must be applied in a manner that balances the need to address genuine grievances with the equally important duty to prevent its misuse.”

Finding the continuation of proceedings to be “counterproductive to the ends of justice”, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s refusal to quash, and formally ended the criminal case. As the Bench put it: “Once the marital relationship has ended in divorce and the parties have moved on with their lives, the continuation of criminal proceedings against family members, especially in the absence of specific and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose.”

Date of Decision: 12 August 2025