Cruelty to a married woman by her husband or his relatives is now prosecuted under Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Section 85 creates the offence, punishable with up to three years and a fine; Section 86 defines cruelty. The substance is carried over from Section 498A IPC largely unchanged. Cases registered before 1 July 2024 continue under Section 498A.
The provisions
Section 85 BNS — whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of
a woman, subjects her to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to a fine.
Section 86 BNS — defines cruelty as:
(a) any wilful conduct of such a nature as 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; or
(b) harassment of the woman where it is with a view to coercing her or any person
related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, or
on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
Anyone familiar with Section 498A IPC will recognise this. The offence and
its explanation have been split into two sections, but the substance is carried
across.
What did not change
- The punishment: up to three years and a fine
- The offence remains cognizable and non-bailable
- The definition of cruelty
- The related offence of dowry death, formerly Section 304B IPC, now
Section 80 BNS
- The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which is untouched
What did change
Only the numbering, and the procedural code within which the case runs. The
relevant BNSS provisions:
| Step |
Provision |
| Registration of FIR |
BNSS 173 |
| Notice to appear instead of arrest |
BNSS 35 |
| Anticipatory bail |
BNSS 482 |
| Bail by Sessions or High Court |
BNSS 483 |
| Quashing by High Court |
BNSS 528 |
The Arnesh Kumar safeguards
This remains the single most important practical protection in these cases.
In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) the Supreme Court, dealing directly
with Section 498A, held that for offences punishable with imprisonment of up to
seven years, police must not arrest automatically on registration of an FIR.
Instead they should:
- Satisfy themselves that arrest is necessary under the parameters now in
Section 35 BNSS
- Issue a notice to appear where arrest is not necessary
- Record reasons in writing where an arrest is made
- Forward the reasons to the Magistrate, who must be satisfied before authorising
detention
These directions apply equally to Sections 85 and 86 BNS, since the punishment is
the same.
If a notice under Section 35 BNSS arrives, it is not an arrest. Attending is
generally advisable, because failure to comply is itself a ground for arrest.
Take advice first, take the notice with you, and do not sign a statement you have
not read.
How these cases are commonly defended
The approach depends entirely on the facts, but the recurring lines are:
- Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, moved promptly. Because the
offence is non-bailable, this is usually the first step.
- Challenging omnibus allegations. Where an FIR names a wide circle of
relatives without attributing any specific act to each, the courts have
repeatedly held that the proceeding cannot be sustained against those persons.
In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of UP and a long line of later cases, the Supreme
Court and High Courts have quashed proceedings against relatives on that
ground.
- Quashing on compromise under Section 528 BNSS, where the parties have
genuinely settled. Matrimonial disputes fall within the category where the
High Court may quash despite the offence being non-compoundable, following
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab.
- Territorial jurisdiction. Following Rupali Devi v. State of UP, a
complaint may be filed where the woman took shelter after leaving the
matrimonial home, which widens rather than narrows the available forums —
worth checking in every case.
- Trial, where the case must be met on the evidence.
A necessary word of balance
Sections 85 and 86 exist because cruelty within marriage is real and was for a
long time effectively unpunishable. The safeguards described above exist because
the courts have also observed misuse in some cases. Both things are true, and
neither is a reason to treat a particular case as fitting a pattern before its
facts are known.
What can be said generally is that these matters are usually best resolved, where
resolution is possible, rather than fought to the end — and that the earlier
advice is taken, the more options remain open.