The Supreme Court held that a person cannot be denied the right to travel abroad solely because he is accused in a 498A IPC complaint, especially when there is no evidence of wrongdoing.
The Supreme Court has cautioned against the misuse of Section 498A IPC in matrimonial cases, stating that vague allegations against husbands and their relatives can lead to abuse of the legal system.
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the IPC applies only to the husband who remarries during his existing marriage, and not to his second wife.
The Gujarat High Court quashed a 2019 FIR and observed that many women file exaggerated domestic violence and dowry cases as a tactic to pressure husbands and their families.
The Calcutta High Court has issued guidelines for police and courts regarding arrests in cruelty cases under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Act. The court clarified that arrests should not be automatic and must follow legal procedures.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that not having a physical relationship after marriage is not cruelty under IPC 498A but qualifies as cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. The court annulled the marriage but dismissed criminal proceedings against the husband.
The Orissa High Court ruled that Section 498A is often misused to pressurize a husband’s family. The court quashed a case against a woman, stating that relatives are sometimes falsely implicated in dowry harassment cases.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that simply mentioning family members in a 498A dowry case is not enough to justify legal action unless their active involvement is proven.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that not having a physical relationship after marriage does not amount to cruelty under IPC 498A but may be grounds for annulment under the Hindu Marriage Act due to non-consummation.
The Karnataka High Court quashed a false dowry case filed by a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, calling it an abuse of the court process. The court noted that the mother-in-law did not reside with the couple and could not have harassed the daughter-in-law.
