New Delhi: The Delhi High Court recently stayed trial court proceedings against two brothers accused by their sister-in-law of rape, cruelty and sexual harassment, warning of what it called an “emerging trend” of complainants adding sexual offence charges in matrimonial litigations to compel in-laws to pay “hefty amounts” to settle the dispute.
Justice Girish Kathpalia said this pattern has been emerging since the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar, a landmark judgement that set strict guidelines for police arrests to prevent the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and dowry prohibition laws. It made automatic arrests in cases where maximum punishment is up to seven years difficult.
“In the recent past, ever since the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar… a trend is setting in where the complainants have started alleging such serious charges of rape, molestation and similar other sexual misconduct only to ensure that the in-laws of the complainant are compelled to settle the matrimonial disputes by paying hefty amounts,” the court said.
These court’s remarks came on 1o July while hearing petitions from the two men seeking to quash an FIR filed by their sister-in-law that accused them of cruelty, criminal breach of trust, rape, sexual harassment, criminal intimidation and outraging a woman’s modesty.
Weighing in on this “emerging trend” of leveling allegations of sexual misconduct against husbands and their families in matrimonial disputes, Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra told ThePrint, “The plethora starts from 498A (cruelty), and allegations go all the way to rape, obscene gestures, obscene photography, outraging the modesty of a woman.”
“An honest survey should be done, sifting the genuine cases from the fake ones. How many are because of false property disputes, or because of matrimonial disputes, and how many are genuine ones? These things are to be investigated,” she said.
‘Ever since SC delivered judgment in Arnesh Kumar…a trend is setting in where complainants have started alleging serious charges of rape and similar sexual misconduct only to ensure in-laws are compelled to settle matrimonial disputes by paying hefty amounts,’ says HC.
Also Read: In departure from many past court orders, Gujarat HC flags bodily autonomy in a marital rape case
‘Trend’ vs genuine cases
The petitioners in the HC case said the complainant married their brother in 2016 and filed for divorce in September 2023. An FIR followed in April 2024, but it made no mention of rape.
That allegation appeared only in June 2024, when her statement was recorded and she said, for the first time, that one of the brothers-in-law had raped her back in 2017, according to the petitioners.
Noting that the complainant did not explain the years-long gap between the alleged offence of rape and the registration of FIR, Justice Kathpalia stayed the trial court proceedings.
This isn’t the first time judges have expressed their worry over wives invoking serious criminal sexual allegations against their husbands and even in-laws in dowry harassment and divorce cases.
Legal experts say Indian courts have identified something real, while cautioning that genuine complaints of sexual violence need to be taken seriously on their own merits.
Geeta Luthra said she has watched specific allegations shift over time from rape to unnatural sex, and more recently, to POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) charges.
“Earlier parties used to invoke Section 377 IPC, which relates to unnatural sex. Then they shifted to allegations of marital rape, and nowadays even POCSO cases are being filed against a partner’s brother, father, mother, or sister, with the minor child of the fighting couple becoming the complainant. However, there will always be genuine cases,” she said.
For Luthra, the real challenge is telling genuine complaints from false ones without lowering the bar for either, acting swiftly when an allegation turns out to be false, while making sure real complaints still get full protection.
She also called for solid empirical research into how often criminal law is being invoked simply as a lever in property or matrimonial disputes, rather than relying on impressions.
Why this happens
Delhi-based lawyer Akanksha Mehta said that the Delhi High Court has put its finger on an issue that demands real institutional reflection.
“The Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar sought to curb the misuse of arrest powers in matrimonial disputes. It was never intended to incentivise a shift towards invoking graver allegations as a means of exerting pressure or enhancing bargaining leverage in matrimonial settlements,” she said, adding that even if the cases are proven wrong, the stigma and reputational damage caused by the allegations can last a lifetime.
The law laid down in the landmark 2014 case stated that there would be no automatic arrest in offences having a maximum punishment up to 7 years of imprisonment, and agencies would have to follow section 41A of the CrPC, which mandates issuing a notice of appearance to the accused in such cases before they are taken into custody.
To bypass this judgment, complainants add graver allegations in their complaints, which would constitute offences punishable by more than 7 years of imprisonment, such as offences under 377 of IPC (unnatural sex) against the husband or an offence under Section 376 (rape) against other family members.
‘SC in Arnesh Kumar sought to curb misuse of arrest powers in matrimonial disputes. It was never intended to incentivise a shift towards invoking graver allegations as a means of exerting pressure or enhancing bargaining leverage in matrimonial settlements,’ Advocate Akanksha Mehta.
In such circumstances, the police are not required to follow the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar and can directly arrest the accused—husband or his family members—without notice.
Mehta added. “Someone falsely accused of a grave sexual offense can carry the stigma and reputational damage long after the case itself is over, and every misused allegation chips away at how seriously genuine complaints get taken,” she said.
Justice Kathpalia’s concerns echo recent Supreme Court rulings.
In Ishwar Chand Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), the court quashed proceedings against a husband and his family, pointing to a broader pattern of criminal provisions, including rape, assault to outrage modesty, criminal intimidation and causing hurt, being misused in matrimonial fights.
In the 2025 ruling, Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said there was a “growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A” to settle personal scores, and warned that vague, catch-all allegations need scrutiny or they risk becoming a tool for abuse.
Broadly, the case dealt with the husband’s challenge to a September 2025 order passed by the Allahabad HC, which refused to quash criminal proceedings against him, his mother, brother and sister.
His wife had levelled not just rape, assault and use of criminal force charges, but also invoked provisions under the stringent POCSO Act, relating to penetrative sexual assault. She also alleged that her daughter was harassed, beaten, and abused by her “alcoholic” husband.
On the 2025 judgment delivered by the two-judge SC bench, senior advocate Geeta Luthra said, “We literally needed Justice Nagarathna to point this out. The lady judge of the highest court calling out the malpractice. She is extremely egalitarian and cautious that women get their due. I also come across genuine cases as well as such cases. For every false case, you will also have a genuine one”, she told ThePrint.
Emphasising how making false allegations against family members can also lead to the untoward consequence of entire families breaking down, Luthra said, “It is dangerous to do so, as it destroys the fabric of society. I have even seen cases where people make allegations against their own parents,” she said.
On the other hand, criminal lawyer Arpit Goel said this is in line with what practitioners see routinely. “In matrimonial disputes, we almost invariably see a package or bouquet of litigations, including maintenance, restitution of conjugal rights, divorce, domestic violence proceedings, and criminal cases against the husband, his relatives and, at times, even the extended family.”
More often than not, he said, it’s the fear of prosecution, not the merits of the case, and not even the family’s actual financial capacity, that ends up setting the settlement figure.
Not an isolated warning
Earlier this year, in Sunny Kant v. State, the Delhi High Court quashed proceedings against a man after finding his wife’s allegations self-contradictory: she had simultaneously claimed he was impotent and unable to consummate the marriage, while separately alleging he’d forced her into oral sex.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma pointed out there was no mention of resistance, force, threat, or anything suggesting the encounter wasn’t consensual, and held that a charge can’t be framed on vague claims that don’t establish the offence’s basic elements.
A similar pattern played out in Madhya Pradesh in 2023, when the HC quashed a rape, unnatural sex and cruelty FIR against Congress MLA Umang Singhar, based on a complaint filed by his wife. The court noted that the couple had lived together and even honeymooned together, yet the complaint gave no specific date, time, or place for any of the alleged offences.
The court also weighed claims that the complainant had demanded Rs 10 crore and threatened to derail Singhar’s political career, concluding the case was “manifestly attended with mala fide”.
Citing State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the court held that prosecutions driven by ulterior motives or personal vendettas should be thrown out.
A ‘gap’ in the law
For Goel, these rulings point to something Parliament hasn’t addressed. “Following the Nirbhaya reforms of 2013, Parliament significantly expanded the scope of sexual offence laws to strengthen protection for women. However, there has been no corresponding legislative effort to introduce safeguards against manifestly mala fide prosecutions, particularly where allegations of rape surface only after matrimonial disputes have already arisen.”
Goel said he would like to see an expert committee, ideally led by a retired Supreme Court judge, to take a hard look at reforms.
Still, lawyers were careful to draw a line. Judicial concern over misuse shouldn’t translate into treating genuine complaints with suspicion simply because they surface amid a divorce, lawyers say.
“The bottom line is that we need to keep weighing each case on its own facts, cracking down on abuse of the process without making it harder for real survivors to be heard,” said one of them.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: Chiraiya shows marital rape is structural—it is embedded in India’s legal framework