SC Dissolves IPS Officer's Marriage, Orders Public Apology For Misusing 498A Against Husband
The bench noted that the husband had spent 109 days in jail, and his father 103 days, due to the cases filed by the officer.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed a woman IPS officer to issue an unconditional public apology to her estranged husband and his family for the distress caused by multiple false criminal cases she had filed against them during a marital dispute.
The court also dissolved the marriage and cancelled all pending cases between the two sides.
A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih issued the directions while finalising a settlement between the couple, who had been living separately since 2018.
The court granted custody of their daughter to the mother, while allowing the father and his family visitation rights.
The bench noted that the husband had spent 109 days in jail, and his father 103 days, due to the cases filed by the officer.
'What they have suffered cannot be compensated in any manner," the court observed, adding that the apology must be published in national editions of one prominent English and one Hindi newspaper.
However, the court clarified that the apology would not be considered an admission of guilt and cannot be used against her in future legal or administrative matters.
The court also instructed the officer not to misuse her position or seek any official action against her former husband and in-laws. The husband, in turn, was told not to misuse the apology in any form.
The couple had filed multiple cases against each other, including divorce and maintenance proceedings, and had approached the Supreme Court to transfer the matters to their respective jurisdictions.
In a related ruling, the Supreme Court also upheld the 2022 guidelines issued by the Allahabad High Court, which state that no immediate arrest should be made under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code in dowry harassment cases.
The guidelines require a two-month window for preliminary inquiry and intervention by a family welfare committee before any arrest.
The court reiterated its concerns over the misuse of Section 498A, and its corresponding provision, Section 85, in the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), saying that proper safeguards must be maintained to ensure justice for all parties involved.
view comments
First Published:
July 23, 2025, 08:03 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Udaipur Files': SC declines to extend stay on release, says those against it can approach Delhi HC
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to extend the stay on release of the film Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder and told those objecting to it to approach the Delhi High Court for any further relief. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi told senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Menaka Guruswamy, who appeared for those opposing its release, that they can approach the high court if they want to challenge the order by the expert committee set up by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry to review the certificate granted to the movie by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The committee, set up following an order of the Delhi High Court, had recommended allowing the release subject to certain changes, including a new disclaimer. While Sibal was appearing for Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani, Guruswamy was appearing for Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case. 'We have not touched the merits…We will pass an order asking the high court to take it up on Monday…Whatever arguments you have to make, go to high court,' the bench said. As the counsel for those objecting to the release sought a stay in the meanwhile, Justice Kant said, 'meanwhile nothing.' Appearing for the filmmakers, senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia opposed the request for extending the stay ordered by the high court. 'What is happening is very peculiar. This is my SLP [special leave petition] challenging the stay. Can they ask for stay in my SLP when they have a legal remedy before the HC?' Bhatia asked. The court pointed out that it had not granted any stay. Sibal said, 'I am not disputing that. In any case he can't screen the movie after tomorrow. You have to get 1,800 cinema halls.' Another counsel urged the bench, 'Your Lordships need only say HC will hear it on Monday. Meanwhile, the movie will not be screened, that is all.' The bench, however, did not agree. Bhatia referred to the objections raised in the past to the release of the film, Kerala Story, and the Supreme Court subsequently allowing its release. 'Every time the SC has allowed release. Let them go to HC. The HC will give them a detailed hearing. If there is a case made out for a stay, the HC will grant them. Why should this court, where I am the aggrieved party, pass an interim order stopping the release of the movie?' he said. Bhatia added, 'All preparations at my end are being done. I have lost 12 days already. I have abided by every instruction…Now today they couldn't make out a case. The revisional authority has passed an order. It would not be appropriate for Your Lordships to grant relief to them at this juncture.' Pointing out that around 1,200 screens had been blocked to screen the film, Bhatia said, 'And what are we encouraging Your Lordship? Is that question not relevant? Any person…comes forward, says I am aggrieved, my feelings are hurt. Can there be a …movie which will not hurt the sentiments of anyone? And then there are orders passed by the HC. A special screening was done for them. 55 plus 6 plus disclaimer edited by them…Now any further stay would be unfair.' The CBFC had ordered 55 cuts and the committee constituted by the Centre had recommended six further changes in addition to a new disclaimer. A counsel backing demands for its release said that no one was vilified even when films like Kashmir Files were released. 'The argument is this film will vilify the community and jeopardise the social fabric of the country. Earlier also similar arguments were made…Did any incident happen after the Kashmir Files? Was any Muslim targeted? Was the community vilified? Were even Kashmiri Muslims targeted?' he submitted. 'Madani should understand that the social fabric of the country was not harmed even after Pahalgam. It was not harmed after 26/11, or after the actual incident of Udaipur, or after Kashmir Files, or after Kerala Story. If it was harmed, it should be part of their petition. It is not. Their vilification theory and hate story is a figment of imagination. They are making a mountain out of a molehill….They want us to believe Udaipur Files is more profound than Pahalgam, Pulwama…,' he added. Bhatia questioned Madani's credentials saying he has three FIRs registered against him for provocative speech. 'They want to act as super censor. Can this be allowed in a country like ours?' he asked. Justice Kant said, 'Today, only short question here is once you withdraw your petition, should there be a condition from this court (to not screen) for 2 days, 3 days…?' Sibal said that all cases cited by the film makers are different from this 'for the simple reason that this movie has been seen while others were not seen. Therefore I am challenging the content which could not be done in those cases.' The high court had allowed a special screening and asked those objecting to watch it before it decided their plea for stay of release. Sibal argued that his case is also covered by the Supreme Court judgment in the Amish Devgan case. But Justice Bagchi said, 'In that respect, we will apply the Wednesbury principle. Whenever an expert body takes a decision, courts are generally deferential. It is not that judicial review is completely obviated. If the finding is perverse or completely contrary to the established principles, fundamental principles, courts will interfere. But nonetheless, we won't put the test of proportionality vis a vis the hands of the expert body.' Sibal said 'They have a CBFC certificate. The presumption is in their favour. But I have a right to challenge it.' 'You have (already) challenged it,' said Justice Bagchi. Sibal said, 'If they make a statement that it is not being released till Monday, Your Lordships may fix it for Monday (before the HC).' Justice Kant, however, said, 'No, how can we compel them to make a statement!' Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
News18
42 minutes ago
- News18
Stolen, misplaced items worth Rs 1.54 cr returned to 227 owners by Mumbai cops
Mumbai, Jul 25 (PTI) Stolen and misplaced items worth more than Rs 1.54 crore were returned to 227 rightful owners by Zone VIII of Mumbai police at an event held in Bandra Kurla Complex on Friday, an official said. These items were returned by BKC, Kherwadi, Nirmal Nagar, Vakola, Vile Parle, Sahar and Airport police stations, which are part of Zone VIII, said Deputy Commissioner of Police Manish Kalwaniya. Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
News18
42 minutes ago
- News18
Will Putin And Zelenskyy Meet? Kremlin Says ‘It's Possible' But Sets Tough Condition
Last Updated: Russia-Ukraine War: A Putin-Zelenskyy summit can only happen as the final step in a peace deal, Kremlin said. A summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy could only take place as the final step in a comprehensive peace deal, the Kremlin said, casting doubt on Ukraine's proposal for an August meeting. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that while a leaders' summit could 'put the final point on a settlement," it would not be possible without substantial groundwork by negotiating teams. He asserted, 'It is impossible to do it the other way round." This comes after Ukraine proposed a meeting between the two presidents by the end of August following a brief round of peace talks held earlier this week. The proposed timeline is meant to fall within the 50-day window set by US President Donald Trump, who last week called for a deal and threatened new sanctions on Russia and its export partners if an agreement is not reached by early September. Dmitry Peskov expressed skepticism over the feasibility of such a rapid timeline as he said, 'Is it possible to go through such a complex process in 30 days? Well, obviously, it is unlikely." He also reiterated that Moscow and Kyiv remain far apart in their negotiating positions, noting, 'They are diametrically opposed. It is unlikely that they can be brought together overnight. This will require very complex diplomatic work." Hours after a brief third round of ceasefire talks in Istanbul ended without progress, deadly drone strikes by both sides killed five people across Russia and Ukraine. Ukrainian authorities reported that three people were found dead in the rubble of a home in Kharkiv, with additional casualties in Cherkasy, Zaporizhzhia and Odesa. In Russia, officials in the Krasnodar region said two people were killed and 11 injured in a Ukrainian drone strike on Sochi. A separate Russian missile strike on Kharkiv on Thursday morning left at least 33 wounded. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
