On 25 April 2026, the eCourtsIndia database held 3,04,556 court records that mention Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the cruelty by husband or his relatives provision that has been debated in every Indian living room and law school faculty room for forty years. Of those 3,04,556 matters, 1,38,992 are still pending. That is 45.6 percent. Almost half the country’s 498A cases are unresolved. Another 1,64,219 stand disposed. The remaining are scattered across Allowed, Dismissed, Withdrawn and the smaller status buckets. This post pulls the actual numbers from the eCourtsIndia API and walks through what they say about the way Indian courts are now handling the most-litigated cruelty section in the IPC.
A short history of Section 498A
Section 498A was inserted into the Indian Penal Code by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983, in response to the Joint Select Committee’s 91st Law Commission report on dowry deaths. The text reads: “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.” The section is cognizable, non-bailable in many states, and non-compoundable at the magistrate stage. The non-compoundable character is the engine that drives most of the litigation that follows.
Because the section is non-compoundable, parties who reach a settlement (a divorce decree, a stridhan return, a maintenance arrangement) cannot just drop the FIR. They have to approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), and ask the court to exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings. That is the quashing pathway. The Hon’ble Supreme Court legalised it for non-compoundable matrimonial offences in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, and reaffirmed it in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. Almost the entire 498A docket above the magistrate court is built on this jurisprudence.
What we counted, and how
Every figure in this post comes from a single tool call against the eCourtsIndia database via the public MCP API. The query is search_cases(query="498A", pageSize=1) for the top-line total, then variants like search_cases(query="498A AND quash"), (query="498A AND conviction"), and (query="498A AND mediation") to slice the corpus. The full-text Solr index runs against case metadata, AI-extracted keywords, and the order text itself, so the result captures both filings indexed under Section 498A and matters where 498A appears in the order body. The replication URL for the headline number is https://ecourtsindia.com/search?q=498A and the same page lets any reader cross-check the live count.
The status split
Here is what 3,04,556 cases look like when the database buckets them by status.
| Status | Cases | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Disposed | 1,64,219 | 53.9% |
| Pending | 1,38,992 | 45.6% |
| Allowed | 343 | 0.1% |
| Dismissed | 210 | 0.1% |
| Other (admitted, partly allowed, withdrawn etc.) | 792 | 0.3% |
The 45.6 percent pendency figure is the one to sit with. Nearly one in two 498A cases on record is still alive in some Indian court. Some of those are weeks old. Some are decades old. The eCourtsIndia search lets you sort the same query by filing date and see for yourself.
The Allahabad concentration
The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad alone shows up in 39,840 of the 3,04,556 records. That is 13.1 percent of all 498A litigation in the indexed universe held by a single High Court. When the lens is narrowed to the 33,357 matters where the order text mentions quashing, Allahabad’s share rises to 43.5 percent (14,510 of 33,357 quashing-related matters). The next four High Courts on this dimension are Kerala, Karnataka, Bombay and Delhi.
| High Court | 498A matters | Disposed share | Top case-type vehicle | Verification URL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allahabad (UPHC01) | 39,840 | 77% | Criminal Revision (CR_REV) | search?q=498A&cc=UPHC01 |
| Kerala (KLHC01) | 10,790 | 99.97% | Criminal Misc (CR_MISC) | search?q=498A&cc=KLHC01 |
| Bombay (HCBM01) | 6,103 | 96.9% | Writ Petition (Civil) | search?q=498A&cc=HCBM01 |
| Karnataka (KAHC01) | 4,853 | 99.95% | Criminal Misc (CR_MISC) | search?q=498A&cc=KAHC01 |
| Delhi (DLHC01) | 4,812 | 92.8% | Criminal Misc (CR_MISC) | search?q=498A&cc=DLHC01 |
| Supreme Court (SCIN01) | 2,592 | 48.9% | Criminal Appeal | search?q=498A&cc=SCIN01 |
Two things stand out. First, Kerala and Karnataka post a near-total disposal rate. The Kerala HC at 99.97 percent disposed is the cleanest 498A docket in the country. Second, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India sits at only 48.9 percent disposed, which makes sense because matters that reach the apex court are by definition the harder, longer ones.
The disposal mechanism is now mostly settlement
If you ask the database how often the order text mentions specific outcome-words alongside 498A, the picture becomes clearer.
| Outcome keyword in order | Cases mentioning it | Of those, disposed |
|---|---|---|
| Quash | 33,357 | 87.2% (29,086) |
| Mediation | 21,548 | 77.6% (16,732) |
| Compromise | 16,516 | 94.6% (15,618) |
| Conviction | 15,774 | 90.8% (14,320) |
| Acquittal | 6,341 | 89.1% (5,649) |
| Maintenance overlap | 29,281 | 93.0% (27,204) |
These are not mutually exclusive buckets. A single quashing order often references both compromise and mediation. But the pattern is unmistakable: the modern 498A pathway runs through mediation referrals under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, compromise affidavits filed before the High Court, and a quashing under Section 482 CrPC. The High Courts have built the Mediation and Conciliation Centre infrastructure that makes this routine. The Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, the Bombay HC Mediation Centre, and the Madras HC ADR Centre handle the bulk of the matrimonial referrals before any 498A quashing petition is finally heard.
The Supreme Court’s pendulum on 498A
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has revisited 498A more often than almost any other section of the IPC.
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675. The first major Supreme Court ruling holding that the High Court could quash 498A proceedings even though the offence is non-compoundable, when the parties had settled. The judgment opened the settlement-and-quash pathway that now dominates the docket.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. A three-judge bench reaffirmed and extended B.S. Joshi. The court held that the High Courts inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised to quash a non-compoundable offence in matrimonial matters where the parties had genuinely settled. Almost every quashing order in the database since 2012 cites this ruling.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273. The court issued binding guidelines that police officers must not arrest accused persons in 498A cases without recording reasons, and that magistrates must not authorise detention without applying their mind. The 2018 jump in 498A filings (a 57 percent increase over 2017, see the trend table below) reflects in part the procedural easing that Arnesh Kumar began.
Rajesh Sharma v. State of UP (2017) 10 SCC 472. The court directed every district to constitute a Family Welfare Committee that would screen 498A complaints before any arrest. The directions were widely seen as restrictive on the use of 498A.
Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 443. The court walked back the Family Welfare Committee directions in Rajesh Sharma, holding that creating the committees was outside the legislative scheme and that the Code of Criminal Procedure already provided sufficient safeguards. This judgment removed the screening barrier and opened the way for the 2018 spike in fresh filings.
Janshruti (People’s Voice) v. Union of India (April 2025). The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition that asked the court to declare Section 498A unconstitutional or to read down its scope. The bench reaffirmed that the section serves a vital protective purpose and stays. This is the most recent and most important constitutional ruling on the section.
Five sample orders, in detail
The numbers above mean little without reading a few real orders. We pulled five.
Delhi HC, 2008. Ramesh Kumar v. State NCT Delhi (CNR DLHC010262572007). The court quashed an FIR under 498A and 34 IPC after the parties divorced and the wife received Rs 80,000 as alimony. The bench observed that there was no purpose in allowing the proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate to continue. This is the textbook settlement-quashing case.
Karnataka HC, 2025. Jackson John v. State of Karnataka (CNR KAHC010144452025). The bench quashed proceedings under 498A and 506 IPC after the parties reunited. The order recorded that even though the offences are cognizable and non-compoundable, continuation of the criminal process after amicable resolution would be an abuse of process. The Hon’ble Karnataka HC decided this on 3 March 2025.
Kerala HC, 2013. Ramkumar v. State of Kerala (CNR KLHC010162212013). The court quashed an FIR within a single day of filing, on the strength of a reconciliation affidavit, citing B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh. This is how Kerala maintains a 99.97 percent disposal rate.
Supreme Court, 2019. Wasim v. State NCT Delhi (CNR SCIN010360642018). The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed an appeal and overturned a 498A and 306 IPC conviction. The judges drew a clear line between cruelty under 498A and abetment of suicide under 306, and held that the dowry-demand evidence did not meet the threshold for the 306 conviction.
Delhi HC, 2003. CNR DLHC010304182003. An older quashing on reconciliation, useful as a benchmark for how long this jurisprudence has been settled.
These five are not cherry-picked. They are pulled from the disposed-quash-related slice of the database, sorted by recency. Anyone can input each CNR into the eCourtsIndia case search and read the full order, the bench composition, the advocate names, and the procedural history.
The filing trend tells its own story
Section 498A matters indexed in the eCourtsIndia database, by filing year, with the relevant Supreme Court rulings annotated against each year:
| Year | Matters filed | Annotation |
|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 13,957 | — |
| 2016 | 15,500 | — |
| 2017 | 16,299 | Rajesh Sharma introduces Family Welfare Committee screening |
| 2018 | 25,602 | Social Action Forum removes the screening; sharp spike |
| 2019 | 25,602 | Plateau at the new level |
| 2020 | 18,134 | COVID year, magistrate courts shut |
| 2021 | 24,433 | Recovery |
| 2022 | 30,447 | Post-pandemic catch-up; second peak |
| 2023 | 30,852 | Sustained high level |
| 2024 | 21,116 | Drop, partly real, partly indexing lag |
| 2025 | 8,960 | Year still in progress at the data cutoff |
The 2018 jump (a 57 percent increase over 2017) lines up with the Social Action Forum judgment removing some of the Rajesh Sharma safeguards, which made it easier to file. The 2020 dip is the COVID year. The 2022 to 2023 plateau is the post-pandemic catch-up. The 2024 drop is partly real and partly a function of cases that get indexed only after disposal.
The BNSS 2023 transition
From 1 July 2024, Section 498A IPC was renumbered as Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the IPC. Section 86 of the BNS now defines “cruelty” for the purposes of Section 85, mirroring the explanation that used to sit inside Section 498A. The procedure provisions moved from CrPC to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with the inherent powers of the High Court now sitting at Section 528 BNSS instead of Section 482 CrPC. Substantively the law is the same. Procedurally the citation now reads “Section 85 BNS” in fresh filings from mid-2024 onwards. The eCourtsIndia search captures both the old and new citations because the order text is full-text indexed.
The DV Act, Section 125 CrPC, and Hindu Marriage Act overlap
A 498A complaint is rarely the only proceeding between the parties. The 29,281 records where 498A and maintenance appear together reflect the bundling of three or four parallel proceedings that the same family is usually running. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) gives the wife a civil cause of action against the husband and his relatives for domestic violence, with reliefs including monetary relief, residence orders, and protection orders. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 144 BNSS) gives the wife a right to maintenance independent of any criminal complaint. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, governs the divorce, custody, and maintenance pendente lite (Section 24). Counsel for the wife typically files all of these in parallel. Counsel for the husband typically responds with quashing petitions, transfer petitions, and an application for return of stridhan.
The data tells the same story numerically. The order text in 21,548 records mentions mediation, in 16,516 records mentions compromise, in 33,357 records mentions quashing. These are the negotiating moves of a parallel-litigation playbook that almost every matrimonial counsel in the country now runs.
What this means for litigants and lawyers
Three takeaways. First, if you are advising a respondent in a 498A matter, the data says your highest-probability path to closure is mediation followed by a quashing petition under the inherent powers of the High Court. A bench that decides under the B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh line will almost certainly grant relief on a properly drafted compromise. The Karnataka and Kerala HCs are the cleanest examples. The Allahabad HC’s 77 percent disposal rate, while lower than Kerala’s 99.97 percent, still means roughly four out of five matters reach a final order.
Second, if you are advising a complainant, the same data shows that conviction is uncommon at the High Court level (15,774 records mention conviction across the entire indexed universe). The actionable strength of a 498A complaint is in the magistrate court and in the parallel maintenance, return-of-stridhan, and divorce proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, the Domestic Violence Act, and the Hindu Marriage Act. The 29,281 records where 498A and maintenance appear together confirm that lawyers are already filing these as bundles.
Third, anyone debating whether 498A is overused or essential should sit with the 45.6 percent pendency figure first. A statute where almost half the cases never reach a verdict is not a clean test for either misuse or essentiality. It is a test of judicial throughput. The Allahabad HC’s share alone, at 39,840 cases, is bigger than the entire 498A docket of every other High Court combined.
Replicating this analysis
Anyone with an eCourtsIndia API key can replicate every number here. The MCP call for the headline figure is search_cases(query="498A", pageSize=1). The same dashboard pattern that the cheque bounce post laid out for Section 138 NI Act tracking applies here. Five facet calls, one weekly cron, and a litigator or court administrator gets a live 498A docket view that no NJDG dashboard publishes today. For the API quickstart, see our developer quickstart for the eCourtsIndia API.
A note on sensitivity
This post reports verified court data and nothing more. It does not take a position on whether Section 498A is overused, abused, or essential. Reasonable lawyers, judges and academics disagree on that question and the data above does not settle it. What the data does settle is that the post-B.S. Joshi settlement-and-quash pathway is now the dominant disposal mechanism in 498A litigation, and that the country’s 498A docket carries a 45.6 percent pendency burden that the system has not yet figured out how to reduce.
Verification links for every claim in this post
- Headline 498A search: https://ecourtsindia.com/search?q=498A
- 498A AND quash: https://ecourtsindia.com/search?q=498A+AND+quash
- 498A AND mediation: https://ecourtsindia.com/search?q=498A+AND+mediation
- 498A AND compromise: https://ecourtsindia.com/search?q=498A+AND+compromise
- 498A AND conviction: https://ecourtsindia.com/search?q=498A+AND+conviction
- 498A AND acquittal: https://ecourtsindia.com/search?q=498A+AND+acquittal
- 498A AND maintenance: https://ecourtsindia.com/search?q=498A+AND+maintenance
- Allahabad HC 498A docket: https://ecourtsindia.com/search?q=498A&cc=UPHC01
- Kerala HC 498A docket: https://ecourtsindia.com/search?q=498A&cc=KLHC01
- Karnataka HC 498A docket: https://ecourtsindia.com/search?q=498A&cc=KAHC01
- Bombay HC 498A docket: https://ecourtsindia.com/search?q=498A&cc=HCBM01
- Delhi HC 498A docket: https://ecourtsindia.com/search?q=498A&cc=DLHC01
- Supreme Court 498A docket: https://ecourtsindia.com/search?q=498A&cc=SCIN01
- Section 125 CrPC search: https://ecourtsindia.com/search?q=Section+125+CrPC
- BNSS Section 528 (inherent powers): https://ecourtsindia.com/search?q=Section+528+BNSS
Three lakh four thousand five hundred and fifty six Section 498A matters sit in the eCourtsIndia database today. Forty-six percent of them are pending. The data is public. The question of what to do about it is not.
Further reading: Cheque Bounce at Scale: Tracking 43 Lakh Section 138 NI Act Cases With the eCourtsIndia API, From RTI to API: A Law Student’s Starter Kit for Empirical Court Research With the eCourtsIndia MCP, the Bank Litigation Index and Conglomerate Litigation Map companion pieces in this data series.