In a significant judgment delivered on July 22, 2025, the Supreme Court of India made a crucial observation: while laws protecting women against cruelty and dowry harassment must remain intact, the rampant misuse of these provisions must be curbed to prevent the destruction of lives and families. The bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, emphasized that the social utility of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is undeniable, but its weaponization in matrimonial conflicts has led to devastating consequences.
Background: The Shivangi Bansal vs. Sahib Bansal Case
The case of Shivangi Bansal versus Sahib Bansal served as the backdrop for this pivotal ruling. The couple, married in December 2015 according to Hindu traditions, welcomed a daughter in December 2016. However, severe matrimonial discord emerged over time, leading to their separation in October 2018. What followed was an unprecedented legal battle, with the wife filing multiple criminal charges against the husband and his family members.
These charges included a comprehensive FIR citing Sections 498A, 307, 376, 377, 313, and 120B of the IPC, along with provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, domestic violence proceedings, maintenance cases, criminal breach of trust complaints, and numerous revisions and special leave petitions were initiated. In retaliation, the husband and his family also launched legal proceedings against the wife and her relatives.
Devastating Impact of Legal Warfare
The conflict escalated into parallel litigation across courts in Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and even reached the Supreme Court, involving third parties and causing a complete breakdown in family and social relationships. The cumulative effect was catastrophic: the husband served 109 days in jail, while his father spent 103 days behind bars, despite the charges being eventually dropped. The Court noted that the damage inflicted on the family in terms of social, psychological, and professional aspects was irreparable.
Supreme Court's Sweeping Orders
In a rare and comprehensive decision, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to bring a decisive end to the years of fruitless litigation. The Court issued a sweeping order that included:
- Quashing all civil and criminal proceedings between the parties and their families across the country.
- Dissolving the marriage by mutual consent.
- Settling custody, visitation, and maintenance issues.
- Directing the wife to issue a public unconditional apology to the husband and his family for filing false cases.
- Granting police protection to the husband's family.
- Restraining both parties from initiating any future litigation arising from the matrimonial dispute.
Reinstating Family Welfare Committees
The Supreme Court not only addressed the immediate case but also reinstated the Allahabad High Court's framework of Family Welfare Committees as a procedural safeguard to prevent abuse of Section 498A. This move marks a judicial breakthrough, emphasizing that the humanization of the law's application does not weaken its constitutional validity or social utility.
The Court acknowledged a growing trend where criminal law is deployed as a pressure tactic in matrimonial disputes, often without regard for proportionality or truth. In this context, it expressly endorsed the Allahabad High Court's approach, which aims to create a structured buffer between the filing of a complaint and the coercive mechanism of arrest.
Key Safeguards Upheld by the Supreme Court
The Allahabad High Court's procedural safeguards, now endorsed by the Supreme Court, include:
- Cooling-Off Period: After lodging an FIR or complaint involving Section 498A (and allied offences with punishment below 10 years, excluding serious offences like Section 307 IPC), no arrest or coercive action shall be taken for two months.
- Mandatory Reference to Family Welfare Committee: During this period, the matter must be referred to a Family Welfare Committee constituted in each district.
- Composition of FWCs: Each district shall have one or more FWCs under the District Legal Services Authority, comprising at least three members such as young mediators, senior law students, social workers, retired judicial officers, or educated spouses of senior officials.
- Role and Function: The FWC must summon both parties with up to four elderly family members each, facilitate dialogue, attempt reconciliation, and prepare a reasoned report within two months.
- Limited Police Action: While arrests are barred during the cooling-off period, police may conduct peripheral investigations like medical examinations and recording statements.
- Post-Report Action: After receiving the FWC report, the Investigating Officer or Magistrate may proceed based on the merits of the case.
Historical Context and Judicial Evolution
The concept of Family Welfare Committees traces its roots to the 2017 case of Rajesh Sharma vs. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court initially experimented with committee-based scrutiny before arrests. This approach was later recalibrated in the 2018 case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar vs. Union of India, where the Court cautioned against judicial overreach and the creation of parallel statutory mechanisms.
Despite this, the Allahabad High Court, noting persistent misuse concerns, framed detailed procedural safeguards to strike a balance between protection and prevention of abuse. The Supreme Court's endorsement of this framework underscores its commitment to ensuring that Section 498A serves its intended purpose without being exploited as a tool for vendetta.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment in Shivangi Bansal vs. Sahib Bansal represents a landmark step towards curbing the misuse of anti-dowry laws while preserving their protective essence. By upholding the Family Welfare Committee model, the Court has paved the way for a more balanced and humane application of Section 498A, aiming to protect families from the ravages of legal warfare without undermining the rights of genuine victims.
