Child Custody After Matrimonial Dispute

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

The Delhi High Court observed that "merely because the child was in the custody of the husband after disputes inter se arose, cannot be equated with cruelty or harassment as envisaged under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) (Now Section 85 & Section 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS))," while quashing a chargesheet filed against in-laws in a matrimonial dispute case. The Court emphasized the need to prevent misuse of Section 498A IPC while ensuring genuine victims receive justice. 

• The Delhi High Court held this in the matter of X v. Y (2025). 

What was the Background of X v. Y (2025) Case? 

• The petitioners approached Delhi High Court seeking quashing of chargesheet filed against them under Section 498A of IPC. 
• The complainant wife had registered an FIR in 2015 against her in-laws allegedly in retaliation for the divorce case filed by her husband. 
• The matrimonial differences led to separation of the parties, but the custody of the child remained with the husband and his parents. 
• The husband alleged that the wife was suffering from violent psychotic fits which were concealed by her family from him and his family members. 
• Apart from the criminal case, the wife had also filed multiple complaints seeking maintenance, alleging dowry harassment and domestic violence. 
• The husband's family contended that the wife suffered from Bipolar Manic Disorder, and the FIR was filed to pressurize them into conceding to her expectations. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that it was a case where the matrimonial relationship did not work out between the husband and wife, and the FIR was registered to "bring the in-laws to their knees." 
• The Court noted that "Section 498A of IPC (Now Section 85 & Section 86 BNS) has become an easy tool in the hands of the complainants to settle the scores by getting false FIRs registered containing exaggerated and manipulated allegations." 
• The Court found no averment that any demand for dowry was made either prior to or at the time of marriage, and that the wife's family had performed the marriage according to their status. 
• Regarding the mental health allegations, the Court observed: "Whatever may have been her mental psychological indicators, there is nothing to show that there was any forced medication being given to the Complainant or that it resulted in any harm to her health." 
• The Court characterized the case as a "classic example of misuse of the salutary provision of Section 498A IPC (Now Section 85 & Section 86 BNS)" and noted it was an "abuse and misuse of the process of the Court." 
• The Court emphasized that while true victims must get justice, courts must ensure that Section 498A IPC (Now Section 85 & Section 86 BNS) is not permitted to be misused to maintain "credibility and faith in the justice delivery system." 

What is Section 498A of Indian Penal Code? 

About: 

• Section 498A was inserted in the Indian Penal Code to address the growing menace of dowry-related harassment and cruelty towards married women. 
• The section makes "cruelty by husband or relatives of husband" a cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence. 
• It covers both physical and mental cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband or his relatives. 
• The provision was enacted as a social legislation to protect women from domestic violence and dowry-related harassment. 

Essential Elements: 

• Subject: Husband or relative of husband 
• Object: Wife of such husband 
• Mens Rea: Intention to cause cruelty 
• Actus Reus: Conduct that amounts to cruelty 

Definition of Cruelty under Section 498A: 

• Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman. 
• Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. 

Punishment: 

• Imprisonment which may extend to three years. 
• Fine or both. 
• The offence is cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable. 

Comparison: Section 498A IPC vs Sections 85-86 BNS 

• Section 498A IPC has been replaced by Sections 85-86 of BNS, which came into effect on July 1, 2024. 
• While IPC had the definition of cruelty in the 'Explanation' clause of Section 498A itself, BNS has separated the offence (Section 85) from the definition (Section 86) for better clarity. 
• The substantive provisions remain identical - both prescribe imprisonment of up to 3 years and fine, with the same definition of cruelty covering willful conduct and harassment for unlawful demands. 
• Section 85 of BNS uses "shall also be liable to fine" making fine mandatory alongside imprisonment, whereas IPC Section 498A provided "and shall also be liable to fine" but the interpretation remained similar.