<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nThe Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India<\/em> famously observed that misuse of Section 498A could amount to \u201clegal terrorism”. Later, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar<\/em>, the Court issued strict guidelines against automatic arrests, warning that personal liberty was being casually compromised.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMore recently, courts have continued to caution against vague matrimonial allegations. In late 2024 and early 2025, multiple high courts reiterated that criminal law cannot be used as a tool for personal revenge, pressure tactics, or family harassment.<\/p>\n\n\n\nCase Name<\/th> Key Observation<\/th><\/tr><\/thead> Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India<\/td> Misuse of Section 498A may become \u201clegal terrorism”.<\/td><\/tr> Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar<\/td> Automatic arrests violate personal liberty safeguards.<\/td><\/tr> Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar<\/td> General and omnibus allegations against relatives must be scrutinised carefully.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/span>Section 69 BNS and \u201cPromise to Marry\u201d Cases<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nAnother controversial provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is Section 69 BNS, which criminalises sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or false promises of marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The law was intended to punish deliberate deception. However, legal experts argue that its practical application can become problematic when consensual adult relationships later break down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Relationships may fail for many reasons \u2014 family opposition, caste differences, financial disputes, compatibility issues, or mutual disagreements. Yet in some situations, a failed relationship later transforms into a criminal complaint alleging false promises of marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Supreme Court View on False Promise to Marry<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nThe Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that every failed relationship cannot automatically be treated as rape or criminal deception. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra<\/em>, the Court held that consent becomes invalid only if the promise to marry was false from the very beginning and made in bad faith.<\/p>\n\n\n\nA later breakdown of the relationship alone is not enough to establish criminal liability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nEvery failed relationship is not a criminal offence.<\/li>\n\n\n\n The promise must be false from the beginning.<\/li>\n\n\n\n Courts examine intention and surrounding circumstances.<\/li>\n\n\n\n Consensual adult relationships cannot automatically become criminal cases.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<\/span>Rape Law Presumptions and the Burden on the Accused<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nAnother major concern raised in legal discussions involves presumptions under sexual offence laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Under Section 120 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, courts may presume absence of consent in certain rape prosecutions if sexual intercourse is proved and the complainant states before the court that consent was absent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While such presumptions were introduced to strengthen protections for victims of sexual violence, critics argue that they also place an enormous practical burden on the accused, particularly in cases involving prior relationships, delayed FIRs, or long-term consensual interactions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In many such cases, accused individuals are forced to reconstruct years of private conversations, messages, travel history, and personal interactions simply to defend themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Domestic Violence Law Remains Gender-Specific<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThe Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was enacted to provide urgent civil remedies and protection to women facing abuse within domestic relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, the legislation defines the \u201caggrieved person\u201d specifically as a woman. This means men facing domestic abuse, coercion, emotional harassment, or property-related pressure do not receive an equivalent statutory remedy under the same framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critics argue that this creates a one-sided legal structure in which women are automatically treated as complainants while men are treated only as respondents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Why Many Men Say \u201cThe Process Is the Punishment\u201d<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nPerhaps the strongest criticism of the current system is not about conviction rates, but about the legal process itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even before guilt is established, an accused person may face the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nFear of arrest<\/li>\n\n\n\n Expensive anticipatory bail proceedings<\/li>\n\n\n\n Criminal charges against multiple family members<\/li>\n\n\n\n Employment and passport complications<\/li>\n\n\n\n Maintenance and residence disputes<\/li>\n\n\n\n Child custody battles<\/li>\n\n\n\n Social stigma and reputational damage<\/li>\n\n\n\n Years of litigation before acquittal or discharge<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\nCommon Consequence<\/th> Impact on Accused Individuals<\/th><\/tr><\/thead> Arrest Threat<\/td> Loss of liberty and immediate legal pressure<\/td><\/tr> Social Stigma<\/td> Damage to personal and professional reputation<\/td><\/tr> Financial Burden<\/td> High litigation and legal expenses<\/td><\/tr> Family Harassment<\/td> Relatives also dragged into proceedings<\/td><\/tr> Long Trials<\/td> Years before final acquittal or discharge<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<\/span>Latest Judicial Trends in 2025<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nIndian courts have recently shown increasing willingness to scrutinise vague and unsupported allegations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Several High Courts in 2025 have quashed criminal proceedings where complaints lacked specific evidence or relied only on generalised accusations against family members. Courts have also stressed that criminal law cannot be converted into a negotiation tactic during matrimonial breakdowns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legal observers believe this reflects a broader constitutional balancing exercise: protecting genuine victims while also preventing abuse of criminal procedures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The judiciary appears to be moving toward a more evidence-based approach \u2014 one that distinguishes genuine cruelty and exploitation from cases driven primarily by personal disputes, revenge, or emotional fallout.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>The Real Debate: Fairness, Not Gender<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThe core issue is not whether women deserve protection under the law \u2014 they unquestionably do. The real question is whether legal safeguards can coexist with procedural fairness for the accused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A modern justice system must be capable of doing both:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nProtecting genuine victims of abuse and violence<\/li>\n\n\n\n Safeguarding innocent individuals from false or exaggerated prosecution<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\nThe growing public debate around these laws reflects a larger concern about balance, accountability, and due process within India\u2019s criminal justice framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ultimately, justice cannot operate on assumptions tied to gender. Every complaint deserves serious investigation, but every accused person also deserves fairness, dignity, and the protection of constitutional rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The principle should remain simple: investigate carefully, verify facts independently, and punish only those proven guilty under law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<\/span>Are Men Legally Presumed Guilty in India?<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nNo. Legally, every accused person is presumed innocent. However, critics argue that certain gender-specific laws create heavy pressure on men even before trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Is Section 85 BNS the same as Section 498A IPC?<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nBroadly, yes. Section 85 BNS substantially carries forward the offence of cruelty by a husband or his relatives against a woman.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Is Every Failed Promise to Marry a Criminal Offence?<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nNo. Courts have repeatedly held that the promise must be false from the beginning and made in bad faith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Can Husband\u2019s Relatives Be Named in Such Cases?<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nYes, but courts have increasingly quashed cases based on vague and omnibous allegations without supporting evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>What Is the Biggest Problem With False Cases?<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nCritics argue that the process itself becomes punishment through arrest fears, social stigma, financial burden, family harassment, and prolonged litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Conclusion<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nIndian law claims neutrality through constitutional principles, but many gender-specific statutes continue to generate debate over fairness and misuse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The issue is not women\u2019s safety versus men\u2019s rights. The real issue is justice versus misuse of the legal process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A balanced legal system must protect genuine victims while also preventing innocent individuals from becoming collateral damage in prolonged criminal litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The conversation around due process, misuse safeguards, and judicial scrutiny is likely to remain one of the most important legal debates in India in the coming years.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
India\u2019s criminal justice system is built on one fundamental principle: every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Yet, for many men caught in matrimonial disputes, domestic violence complaints, or sexual offence allegations, the experience often feels very different. The reality is that the legal process itself can become deeply punitive long before any<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1371,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[342],"class_list":{"0":"post-24380","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-family-law","7":"tag-family-law"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24380","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1371"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24380"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24380\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24496,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24380\/revisions\/24496"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24380"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24380"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24380"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}