Section 498A IPC (now BNS): Cruelty by Husband or Relatives Explained (2026)

Explainer · Criminal Law

Updated for 2026 · Claw Editorial

Section 498A IPC punishes cruelty to a married woman by her husband or his relatives with up to 3 years imprisonment and fine. It is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable, and under the new code it is Section 85 (with the meaning of cruelty in Section 86) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. This page explains what the section covers, how it was carried into the BNS, and the Supreme Court safeguards against its misuse.

01Why Section 498A is so often misunderstood

Few criminal provisions in India are discussed as heavily as Section 498A. A family that receives a complaint wants to know how serious it is. A woman who is facing harassment wants to know what protection the law gives her. A junior advocate wants to cite the right section after the change from IPC to BNS. Each of them runs into the same three problems.

The section has two sides

The offence exists to protect married women from cruelty at home, and many genuine cases are brought under it. At the same time, courts have repeatedly noted that it is sometimes used against a whole family, including distant relatives, in a marriage dispute. So the section cannot be explained with one line of praise or one line of criticism.

The numbering has changed

From 1 July 2024, new offences are charged under the BNS, not the IPC. Cases for older acts still run under the IPC. Many articles, notes and older judgments still say 498A only, so you often need both numbers in the same document.

Safeguards keep changing

The Supreme Court first tried one set of safeguards, then withdrew part of it, and the arrest guidelines now apply more widely. Knowing which direction still stands is the difficult part.

Section 498A protects a married woman from cruelty, and the courts have added safeguards so that arrest and prosecution are not automatic.

02What Section 498A covers

Section 498A applies when a husband, or a relative of the husband, subjects a woman to cruelty. The key word is cruelty, and the law defines it in two parts.

• Conduct likely to cause serious harm: any wilful conduct that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical.
• Harassment for property or money (dowry harassment): harassment of the woman where it is aimed at forcing her or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, or where it is caused because they have failed to meet such a demand.

So the section covers physical violence and also mental cruelty, such as constant humiliation or threats, if the conduct reaches the level the definition describes. Ordinary quarrels or normal marital friction are not enough on their own. The prosecution has to show conduct of the kind the definition requires.

Two points about who can be accused. The accused must be the husband or a relative of the husband. And the court looks closely at specific allegations against each relative, since vague claims against many family members are a common reason for quashing.

03Punishment under 498A

The punishment for cruelty to a married woman is imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, and the person is also liable to fine. The same punishment applies under BNS Section 85.

The law sets no minimum jail term. The court decides the sentence within the maximum, based on the facts. Cruelty that ends in a death within seven years of marriage may be charged under a different, much more serious provision. That is a separate topic and is not covered in this page.

For other offences people often search next to this one, see our explainers on Section 420 IPC (cheating) and Section 302 IPC (murder).

04Is 498A bailable? Cognizable and non-compoundable status

Section 498A is a non-bailable offence, so bail is not a matter of right. It is also cognizable and, in the ordinary rule, non-compoundable. In plain words:

The fact that the offence is non-bailable and cognizable is why early arrests became common, and that is the reason the Supreme Court stepped in with safeguards.

05IPC 498A to BNS Section 85 and 86

The BNS carries the same offence forward in two sections instead of one. This is a restructure, not a change in the basic punishment.

For anything that happened before 1 July 2024, the IPC section still applies. For acts on or after that date, cite BNS 85 and 86. In a petition, the safe way to write it is "Section 498A IPC (now Section 85 BNS)", with Section 86 added when you are discussing the meaning of cruelty.

The procedure for arrest, bail and trial now sits in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the CrPC.

06Supreme Court safeguards against misuse

The Supreme Court has been aware of the risk of false or exaggerated complaints for many years. Three lines of authority matter most.

Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar (2014)

The Court directed that police should not arrest automatically in offences punishable up to seven years, which includes 498A. The police must be satisfied that arrest is needed, and must record reasons. A Magistrate must also check these reasons before authorising detention. The guidelines were later extended to all offences with a punishment of up to seven years.

Rajesh Sharma v State of UP (2017) and the Family Welfare Committees

In this case the Court directed each district to set up Family Welfare Committees, and said that no arrest should usually follow a complaint until the committee had looked at it. This is the part many people still remember.

Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v Union of India (2018)

A larger bench revisited that direction and held that the Family Welfare Committee scheme could not be a part of the process, since the Court cannot create such a body outside the law. The arrest safeguards from Arnesh Kumar and the ordinary rules on bail stayed in place. So today there is no mandatory Family Welfare Committee step before police act on a 498A complaint.

Quashing on settlement

Even though 498A is non-compoundable, the Supreme Court has said a High Court may quash a matrimonial criminal case on settlement in suitable cases, using its inherent powers, particularly when the dispute is personal and the chance of conviction is slim. It has also warned that cases with serious violence need more care. The usual route is a petition before the High Court, with the settlement terms on record.

Courts have also said, in several judgments, that general and omnibus allegations against all in-laws should be examined carefully and may not be enough to continue a prosecution against each of them.

07Where Claw fits

Claw is an all-in-one legaltech platform for Indian advocates, law firms, and corporate legal teams, combining AI-based case search, an AI legal assistant (Legal GPT), case management, and compliance automation across all Indian courts and tribunals.

For a section like 498A, the hard part for an advocate is often finding the recent judgment on quashing, arrest or omnibus allegations, and confirming the citation is right. Claw’s AI-based case search covers the Supreme Court and 25 High Courts, so you can search by the legal question and check verified citations. Claw does not use customer case documents to train AI models. For tracking your own 498A matters across courts and hearings, see our guide to Supreme Court case tracking software. This page is general information, not legal advice.

08Sources and further reading

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860: indiacode.nic.in
• Supreme Court of India judgments: sci.gov.in
• Claw: clawlaw.in

Last verified October 2026. Always check the current text of the statute and the latest judgments before relying on this page.

09Frequently asked questions