Cruelty in marriage

1 What is 'Cruelty in Marriage'

Cruelty in marriage refers to any form of behaviour by one spouse that causes physical, emotional, or psychological harm to the other spouse. The term encompasses a broad spectrum of abusive actions that may result in physical violence, emotional or mental distress, humiliation, and intentional neglect. Cruelty is often a ground for legal intervention, including divorce, separation, or protection orders, as it fundamentally undermines the sanctity of marriage and threatens the well-being of the victim. In legal terms, it includes both physical cruelty (such as assaults and injuries) and mental cruelty (including sustained mental harassment or emotional abuse).

2 Official Definition of 'Cruelty in Marriage''

The Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed., 2004) describes the term "mental cruelty" as "(without actual violence) the behaviour of a spouse that endangers life, physical health, or mental health of the other spouse. Mental cruelty does not fit the strict definition since the constituents of mental cruelty are neither limited nor constant. Changes in lifestyle, education, family patterns, modernization and globalisation, and increased use of social media are some of the factors contributing to the changing dimensions of mental cruelty. Therefore, what may not be called an act of cruelty in past times, can fall in its sphere today.

Halsbury's Laws of England [Vol.13, 4th Edition Para 1269]: "The general rule in all cases of cruelty is that the entire matrimonial relationship must be considered, and that rule is of special value when the cruelty consists not of violent acts but of injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or taunts. In cases where no violence is averred, it is undesirable to consider judicial pronouncements with a view to creating certain categories of acts or conduct as having or lacking the nature or quality which renders them capable or incapable in all circumstances of amounting to cruelty; for it is the effect of the conduct rather than its nature which is of paramount importance in assessing a complaint of cruelty. Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact and previously decided cases have little, if any, value. The court should bear in mind the physical and mental condition of the parties as well as their social status, and should consider the impact of the personality and conduct of one spouse on the mind of the other, weighing all incidents and quarrels between the spouses from that point of view; further, the conduct alleged must be examined in the light of the complainant's capacity for endurance and the extent to which that capacity is known to the other spouse. Malevolent intention is not essential to cruelty but it is an important element where it exits."

24 American Jurisprudence 2d, the term "mental cruelty" has been defined as: "Mental Cruelty as a course of unprovoked conduct toward one's spouse which causes embarrassment, humiliation, and anguish so as to render the spouse's life miserable and unendurable. The plaintiff must show a course of conduct on the part of the defendant which so endangers the physical or mental health of the plaintiff as to render continued cohabitation unsafe or improper, although the plaintiff need not establish actual instances of physical abuse."

Below are other authoritative definitions:

2.1 'Cruelty in Marriage'' as defined in legislation(s)

Cruelty in marriage is codified under several laws in India, with the most prominent definitions found in:

i. Section 498A, Indian Penal Code (IPC) (Section 85 of BNS): This section was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. The object behind the amendment was to counter the increasing number of dowry deaths in the country as highlighted by the Joint Committee of the Houses. The committee also highlighted the prevalence of cruelty by husbands and his relatives upon married women. Consequently, a new Section 498A, Section 198A and Section 113A was added to the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act respectively, and amendment was made to Section 174, Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Section 498A IPC(Section 85 of BNS) defines cruelty as any willful conduct that is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health (whether mental or physical). It also includes harassment for dowry demands, where the harassment is of such a nature that it results in torture.

Section 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.

According to this Section, if a woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or any of his relative, they shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. The offence is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable.

Cruelty means any wilful conduct which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide. causing grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical) of the woman, or harassing the women to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

ii. Section 13, The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This act defines cruelty as a ground for divorce. Cruelty, in this context, can be either physical or mental and must be of such a nature that it makes it unbearable for one spouse to continue living with the other.

13. Divorce.—(1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party—

(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty;

iii. Section 2 (viii),  The Dissolution of the Muslim Marriage Act, 1939: “Grounds for decree for dissolution of marriage.—A woman married under Muslim law shall be entitled to obtain a decree for the dissolution of her marriage on any one or more of the following grounds, namely:..

(vii) that the husband treats her with cruelty, that is to say, —

(a) habitually assaults her or makes her life miserable by cruelty of conduct even if such conduct does not amount to physical ill-treatment, or

(b) associates with women of evil repute or leads an infamous life, or

(c) attempts to force her to lead an immoral life, or

(d) disposes of her property of prevents her exercising her legal rights over it, or

(e) obstructs her in the observance of her religious profession or practice, or

(f) if he has more wives than one, does not treat her equitably in accordance with the injunctions of the Qoran;”

iv. Section 32 (dd), The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936: the word cruelty is the basis for the dissolution of marriage as under: "That the defendant has since the solemnization of marriage treated the plaintiff with cruelty or has behaved in such a way as to render it in the judgement of the Court improper to compel the plaintiff to live with the defendant."

v. Section 10, The Indian Divorce Act, 1869:  "Any wife may present a petition to the District court or the High Court, praying that her marriage may be dissolved on the ground that, since the solemnization thereof (her husband) has been guilty of adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce."

vi. Section 27(d), The Special Marriage Act, 1954: “Subject to the provisions of this Act and to the rules made thereunder, a petition for divorce may be presented to the district court either by the husband or the wife on the ground that the respondent―

(d) has since the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty;”

2.2 'Cruelty in Marriage'' as defined in official government report(s)

Kb.3/5 /200S-Judl.CeIl, Government of India/Bharat Sarkar; Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantrakya: This report addresses concerns regarding the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with cruelty towards married women by their husbands or relatives. It emphasises the need for careful handling of complaints under this section to prevent harassment and false accusations. Key recommendations include ensuring arrests are made only with written approval from senior police officers, utilising professional family counselors to mediate and resolve disputes before invoking Section 498A, and monitoring the number of complaints and arrests to identify misuse. It also advises that juveniles should not be implicated under this provision and, if necessary, should be placed under the care of Child Welfare Committees.

2.2.1 Law Commission report

Law Commission of India’s Report No. 243: The 243rd Law Commission of India Report focuses on addressing the problems and misuse of Section 498A of the IPC. It brings to light issues such as false complaints and the overuse of the provision leading to indiscriminate arrests, including of the husband’s relatives, which causes unnecessary harassment. Courts have raised concerns that the law is being used as an instrument of legal harassment or legal terrorism rather than as a protective measure. In response, the Commission recommends reforms to ensure balance in the law, including making the offence compoundable (allowing settlement between parties with court permission) and encouraging mandatory pre-arrest scrutiny to prevent unnecessary arrests. The report suggests strengthening guidelines for investigations and arrests to avoid overreach while still protecting genuine victims of cruelty in marriage.

2.3 'Cruelty in Marriage'' as defined in case law(s)

Russel v. Russel, 1997 A.C. 303: "Cruelty was held to be a conduct of such character as to have caused danger to life or health, bodily or mentally, gives rise to reasonable apprehension of such danger. The definition includes both physical and mental cruelty within its scope but it also emphasises on the typical nineteenth century belief that no act can amount to cruelty unless it creates an apprehension or actually causes injury to the petitioner".

Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi 1987 INSC 329: "cruelty is being used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour, it is all the more difficult to define it. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other."

Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan 1982 SCR (1) 695: the Supreme Court acknowledged that the concept of legal cruelty changes as social concepts and living standards change and evolve. Some of the factors recognized as mental cruelty by the Supreme Court are indifference from the spouse, persistent abuse, regular ridiculous remarks, refraining from making sexual relations, and blaming the spouse for it. Not only these, but the constant threat of dissolving marriage and harassment was recognized as the basis for mental cruelty.

Rajani v. Subramonian AIR 1990 Ker. 1: the Court aptly observed that the concept of cruelty depends upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions, their culture and human values to which they attach importance, judged by standard of modern civilization in the background of the cultural heritage and traditions of our society.

Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73: "Mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. "Cruelty", therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other."

Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta (2002) 5 SCC 706: "Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated by assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other."

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273: This is a landmark case where the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed the growing trend of misusing Section 498A as a weapon against the husband and his family by some women. The court remarked that “the simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number of cases, the bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested." The conviction rate in such cases was lowest among all other offences at just 15%. It was held that no arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person and the police has to achieve reasonable satisfaction after doing some investigation as to the genuineness of the allegation. The Court set following guidelines to be followed in case of arrest under Section 498A:

1. Police officers need to satisfy themselves about the necessity of arrest under the parameters laid down under Section 41 of Cr.P.C.
2. Police officers must be provided with a checklist containing the specified sub-clauses of Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
3. The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused must base his decision on the report furnished by the Police officer and must also record his satisfaction.
4. The decision to not arrest an accused must be forwarded to the Magistrate within 2 weeks from the institution of case.
5. Notice of appearance must be served on accused as per Section 41A of Cr.P.C.
6. Failure to comply with these provisions will make the police officer liable for punishment.
7. Magistrate cannot authorize detention without recording reasons otherwise they would be liable for departmental action by the High Court.  

Pinaki Mahipatray Rawal v State of Gujarat (2013) 10 SCC 48: The court observed that mere fact that the husband has developed some intimacy with another, during the subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his marital obligations, as such would not amount to “cruelty”, but it must be of such a nature as is likely to drive the spouse to commit suicide to fall within the explanation to Section 498A IPC. the Court further held that the burden of proof under Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act of showing that an offence has been committed by the accused under Section 498A IPC is on the prosecution.

Gananath Pattnaik v State of Orissa (2002) 2 SCC 619: The Hon’ble Court held that the meaning of “cruelty” under Section 498A varies from individual to individual also depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs. It was held that cruelty for the purpose of offence and the said Section need not be physical. Even mental torture or abnormal behavior may amount to cruelty or harassment in a given case.

Bhaskar Lal Sharma v Monica (2009) 10 SCC 604: In this case, the Court interpreted Section 498A and observed that it was introduced to curb the menace of dowry deaths and harassment to women at the hands of her husband or his relatives.  The Court laid down the following ingredients necessary for an offence u/s 498A:

1. A woman must be married.
2. She must be subjected to cruelty.
3. Cruelty must be of the nature of:

i. any willful conduct as was likely to drive such woman:

a.    to commit suicide;

b.    cause grave injury or danger to her life, life, either mental or physical;

ii. harassment of such woman,

(1) with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand for property valuable security,

(2) or on account of failure of such woman or by any of her relation to meet the unlawful demand,

iii. woman was subjected to such cruelty by:

(1) husband of that woman, or

(2) any relative of the husband.

Dinesh Seth vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2008) 14 SCC 94: The Court observed that the ingredient of cruelty is common to Sections 304B and 498A IPC, but the scope is different. Section 498A has a wider spectrum and it covers all cases in which the wife is subjected to cruelty by her husband or relative of the husband which may result in death by way of suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) or even harassment caused with a view to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security. For a charge under Section 304B, the prosecution has to prove that the death of the woman has been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death, the woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative. However, for a charge under Section 498A, it is sufficient to prove that the woman was subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relative.

Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and others 2005 (6) SCC 281: In the case the Court held that Section 498A is not unconstitutional and ultra vires. The mere possibility of abuse of a provision of law does not per se invalidate it. The object of the provisions is prevention of the dowry menace. However, as the instances of misuse are growing, the legislature should find a way to deal with frivolous complaints.

Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India 2018 (10) SCC 443:  The hon’ble court issued some guidelines relating to arrest and investigation in cases under Section 498A in Rajesh Sharma v State of UP 2004 (3) AWC 2234 . One of the guidelines suggested the constitution of  Family Welfare Committees. The court in this case rejected that guideline and held it to be outside of scope of powers of the code. The guidelines in Rajesh Sharma case were scrutinized in the present case and the court issued the following amended guidelines:

1. Complaints under Section 498A and other connected offences may be investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of the area.
2. In cases where a settlement is reached, the parties can approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court shall dispose of the same.
3. If a bail application is filed with at least one day's notice to the Public Prosecutor or the complainant, the court should aim to decide it on the same day. The recovery of dowry items alone should not be a reason to deny bail, especially if the rights of the wife or minor children, such as maintenance, are otherwise protected.

While deciding on bail, the court must carefully consider the individual role of the accused, the prima facie truth of the allegations, the necessity of further arrest or custody, and the overall interests of justice.

1. In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine
2. It will be open to the District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer nominated by the District Judge to club all connected cases between the parties arising out of matrimonial disputes so that a holistic view is taken by the Court to whom all such cases are entrusted
3. Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of the trial. An application has to be filed either under Section 205 CrPC or Section 317 CrPC depending upon the stage at which the exemption is sought.

2.4 'Cruelty in Marriage'' as defined in other official document(s)

2.5 Legal provision(s) relating to 'Cruelty in Marriage''

i. Section 498A, Indian Penal Code (IPC) (Section 85 of BNS): This section defines cruelty as any willful conduct that is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health (whether mental or physical). It also includes harassment for dowry demands, where the harassment is of such a nature that it results in torture.

Section 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.

According to this Section, if a woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or any of his relative, they shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

The offence is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable.

Cruelty means any wilful conduct which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide. causing grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical) of the woman, or harassing the women to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

ii. Section 13, The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This act defines cruelty as a ground for divorce. Cruelty, in this context, can be either physical or mental and must be of such a nature that it makes it unbearable for one spouse to continue living with the other.

13. Divorce.—(1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party—

(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty;

iii. Section 2 (viii),  The Dissolution of the Muslim Marriage Act, 1939: “Grounds for decree for dissolution of marriage.—A woman married under Muslim law shall be entitled to obtain a decree for the dissolution of her marriage on any one or more of the following grounds, namely:..

(vii) that the husband treats her with cruelty, that is to say, —

(a) habitually assaults her or makes her life miserable by cruelty of conduct even if such conduct does not amount to physical ill-treatment, or

(b) associates with women of evil repute or leads an infamous life, or

(c) attempts to force her to lead an immoral life, or

(d) disposes of her property of prevents her exercising her legal rights over it, or

(e) obstructs her in the observance of her religious profession or practice, or

(f) if he has more wives than one, does not treat her equitably in accordance with the injunctions of the Qoran;”

iv. Section 32 (dd), The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936: the word cruelty is the basis for the dissolution of marriage as under: "That the defendant has since the solemnization of marriage treated the plaintiff with cruelty or has behaved in such a way as to render it in the judgement of the Court improper to compel the plaintiff to live with the defendant."

v. Section 10, The Indian Divorce Act, 1869:  "Any wife may present a petition to the District court or the High Court, praying that her marriage may be dissolved on the ground that, since the solemnization thereof (her husband) has been guilty of adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce."

vi. Section 27(d), The Special Marriage Act, 1954: “Subject to the provisions of this Act and to the rules made thereunder, a petition for divorce may be presented to the district court either by the husband or the wife on the ground that the respondent―

(d) has since the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty;”

3 Types of 'Cruelty in Marriage'

Marital cruelty can be physical, mental, emotional, or sexual. Mental cruelty involves causing agony and suffering to a partner in some way that makes it difficult for either person to live with. Physical cruelty includes beatings, slaps, and other forms of physical violence. Sexual cruelty, on the other hand, includes forcing a partner to indulge in sexual intercourse or unnatural sex. Indian courts also recognize the denial of sexual intercourse in marriage as a component of mental cruelty.

3.1 Variations/ multiple meanings in terms of usage in research and per civil society.

Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn., 2004) defines the term ‘mental cruelty’ as “a ground for divorce, where one spouse's course of conduct (not involving actual violence) creates such anguish that it endangers the life, physical health, or mental health of the other spouse.”

4 International Experience

Dunkley v. Dunkley (1938) SASR 325: the Court examined the term "legal cruelty" in the following words: "'Legal cruelty', means conduct of such a character as to have caused injury or danger to life, limb or health (bodily or mental), or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of danger. Personal violence, actual or threatened, may alone be sufficient; on the other hand, mere vulgar abuse or false accusations of adultery are ordinarily not enough; but, if the evidence shows that conduct of this nature had been persisted in until the health of the party subjected to it breaks down, or is likely to break down, under the strain, a finding of cruelty is justified."

Luther v. Luther [(1978) 5 R.F.L. (2d) 285, 26 N.S.R. (2d) 232, 40 A.P.R. 232]: the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia held as under:

"7. The test of cruelty is in one sense a subjective one, namely, as has been said many times, is this conduct by this man to this woman, or vice versa, cruelty? But that does not mean that what one spouse may consider cruel is necessarily so. Cruelty must involve serious and weighty matters, which, reasonably considered, may cause physical or mental suffering. It must furthermore -- an important additional requirement -- be of such a nature and kind as to render such conduct intolerable to a reasonable person."

5 Appearance of 'Cruelty in Marriage'' in Database

5.1 NCRB Report 2022

The National Crimes Records Bureau publishes an yearly publication called Crime in India.The latest Report by National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India 2022, shows that the majority of cases of crime against women under IPC were registered under ‘Cruelty by Husband or His Relatives’ (31.4%).

The NCRB report for 2022 contains Table 1.2 which reflects an increasing trend in cases of cruelty. The Table can be referenced at page number 5 of the report which is available at https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/nationalcrimerecordsbureau/custom/1701607577CrimeinIndia2022Book1.pdf

The NCRB report for 2022 contains Table 1A.4 which collates data related to the number of cases under the head ‘cruelty by husband or his relatives. The data reflects that Uttar Pradesh (20371), West Bengal (19650), and Rajasthan (18847) recorded the highest number of crimes in this category in the year 2022. The data also shows that the pendency percentage is quite high at 92.3%, as well as the rate of conviction at 17.7%. The Table can be referenced at page number 56 of the report which is 0https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/nationalcrimerecordsbureau/custom/1701607577CrimeinIndia2022Book1.pdf

5.2 National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3) India 2019-21

The National Family Health  Survey is conducted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare reflects on specific trends of domestic violence across the country through direct interviews with the respondents. Chapter 15 focuses on domestic violence, and provides a detailed analysis regarding its prevalence and impacts on women in India.

Figure 15.2 from the National Family Health Survey depicts the percentage of women aged between 18-39 years who have experiences physical or sexual violence

Figure 15.5  from the National Family Health Survey depicts the percentage of women aged limit their contact with their families, and 11 percent report that he frequently accuses them of being unfaithful.

6 Research that engages with 'Cruelty in Marriage''

6.1. Swayam: Ending Violence Against women, Kolkata

Swayam prepared a Report titled ‘Section 498A: A Report Based Upon Analysing Data from the National Crime Records. 2005-2009’. The report analysis the NCRB data relating to violence and cruelty against women inside their marital homes, dowry related murders and suicides, the number of arrests and convictions.. It is a comprehensive study of the ground realities of Section 498A, and suggests ways to ensure its effective implementation.

6.2. Humsafar- Support Centre for Women, Lucknow

Humsafar conducted an in-depth study on the efficiency of Section 498A in the state of Uttar Pradesh and published a report titled ‘A Comprehensive Study on the Efficacy of Section 498A IPC- In the State of Uttar Pradesh’. The report discusses crucial aspects such as international perspectives of violence against women, interpretation of Section 498 A in terms of cruelty and violence against married women, registration of FIR, bail provisions, conviction rates, and misuse of the provision. The report is a result of methodological interaction with women petitioners who have filed cases in court relating to cruelty under Sec. 498-A of IPC along with systematic review of their case files and records placed in court. A total number of 105 such cases had been referred from 12 districts in Uttar Pradesh.

6.3. Ekta Resource Centre for Women

A report titled ‘A Study on 498A in Tamilnadu’ was published by Ekta Resource Centre for Women in 2011. The study delves into efficiency of 498A IPC in the State of Tamilnadu, . procedural lapses and the victimisation of women litigants, perceptions of judicial officers, police personnel and prosecution officers, and trends and patterns of these offences. The study also offers recommendations for the judiciary, police, policy makers, and civil societies to address prevailing loopholes and drawbacks in the provision. The report is a culmination of case studies of women who experienced matrimonial cruelty using methods of systematic observation & in-depth interviews.

6.4. Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy

Vidhi’s report, ‘Crimes Against Women in India’ evaluates the role played by the legislature, the executive and the judiciary in violence against women. It analyses legislative debates of laws relating to crimes against women to understand their legislative intent. It studies the Right to Information ('RTI') responses to assess executive action and judgements in cases of rape and cruelty to understand the judicial response and application of law.

6.5. Tata Institute of Social Sciences(TISS)

A 2015 report by TISS titled ‘A Study of Cases Filed under Section 498A, IPC; Closed as False in Two Districts and Two Cities of Rajasthan’ studies the cases filed under Section 498 A of IPC, analysing primary and secondary data from 4 districts of Rajasthan- Shri Ganganagar, Bharatpur, Jaipur and Jodhpur City (East). It studies the closed police records of cases filed under Section 498A and interviews with women complainants, family members of these complainants, women’s rights activists, lawyers, and community leaders. This study analysed a total of 337 closed cases from the police records, and a total of 63 women complainants were interviewed along with 42 other stakeholders.

7 Challenges

- Incomplete Data and Reporting Standards: Data on "cruelty" in marriage is often incomplete due to stigma and lack of clear reporting standards.

- Lack of a Universal Definition of Cruelty: "Cruelty" lacks a universal definition, leading to inconsistent legal interpretations across regions.

- Challenges in Proving Mental Cruelty: Difficulty in proving mental cruelty in court.

- Misuse of Legal Provisions (Section 498A): Misuse of Section 498A, where false allegations are made.

- Inconsistent Judicial Interpretation and Delays: Courts apply "cruelty" laws variably, causing unpredictability in rulings and delayed justice.

9 Related terms

- Domestic Violence

- Dowry Harassment

- Marital Abuse

- Mental or Physical Harassment

- Abusive Conduct

- Spousal Abuse

- Marital Misconduct