Public sentiment reflects deep concern and frustration regarding the Supreme Court's ruling on Section 498A, with a notable apprehension regarding the potential for misuse of the law. While some commenters appreciate efforts to curb false allegations, a predominant fear exists that innocent men remain vulnerable to unjust legal actions. Additionally, there are strong calls for legal reforms that ensure protection for all parties involved in domestic disputes, and there is a demand for balanced regulations to address both genuine victims of domestic violence and those wrongfully accused.

Supreme Court

Legislators

Women Advocacy Groups

Men's Rights Groups

Lived together for 12 days and the case took 26 years 😱

sandae504

The trial court convicted the husband under Section 498A, IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, sentencing him to two years and one year of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The conviction was upheld by the Allahabad High Court in 2018. He then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused man on May 13. 2025 since complainant’s allegations lacked material particulars and independent corroboration.

Among other factors, the complainant failed to provide medical evidence to substantiate the miscarriage claim or specific instances of physical assault.

The Court observed that merely emotional or mental distress, without concrete evidence, is not enough to convict the accused under Section 498A, IPC. It emphasised that criminal law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt and that vague, uncorroborated accusations undermine the integrity of the protective legislation.

vaasu_annan

kya faida hua, wife got what she wanted (torture husband using the legal system) and got no punishment for filing a fake case

cool_monster01

Far-Literature7249

Masum Bande ki gand maar ke phek do, all hail the indian justice system.

Ligma_Sugmi

Local police won’t care about Supreme Court comments .
They just file cases on all extended family without even caring about evidences . Then the real harassment starts by police 

Seizing passports , threatening to issue look out circulars (LOC) against the relatives settled abroad . 

An organized scam by police and the complainant

Seven7heavens7

Courts on the higher side often can't see ground realities, 

Relatives will be roped in regardless court's direction. The room for interpretation is enough to rope in a far relative minor child under dowry act.

hi_how_r_u_

it's implications are very severe, from visa revocation to termination of employment, ig this 'd ve come sooner

dying-early-971

So we are debating "innocent until proven guilty" now?

Spiritual-Agency2490

I mean, that makes sense. It would be stupid if you could be responsible for the actions of a family member.

[deleted]

i request government to equally distribute the raype cases on the entire male population of india, plus take child support and alimony from our incomes by default, plus give us other people's child to raise, so we can get over this and move on.

Ig1M

As long as justice system/ police is corrupt, any sensible/nonsensical laws can be moulded for benefits of the perpetrators/criminals. It is the poor/middle class common man/woman who continue to suffer under corrupted officials under the pretext of written 'law'.

bokchoisse

You CANNOT file any Defamation or Malicious Prosecution case.
Because:
1. The case is Pending and you've not been acquitted.
2. Bail does not make you guilty or convicted. Please keep in mind.

For now, you can just face the trial and get acquitted OR, File for Quashing in the High Court.

Unfortunately, you DO NOT have ang remedy available as of now. 

Please stay away from ChatGPT based results.

tal_move

Shameless women &amp; their parents are still doing this even after multiple suicides in the country. 
Lawyers are even more shameless.

Don't worry &amp; keep cool. 

Gather all evidences &amp; keep them handy in case needed. Don't disclose your evidences to anyone.

Immediate-Ebb-3218

Not a lawyer but a lawyer.
see if you want to file a counterblast case against your wife for the case which she has filed against you under section 498A you can file a complaint case against her family members under sections 323,506 of the IPC ( or 352,351 of BNS). It means that she and her family members caused grievous hurt to you and criminal intimidation by beating you and your family members for the sake of you  opposing the case filed by them under section 498A and make a complaint to the magistrate under section 175(4) r/w 223 BNS with the magistrate along with some injury report whichever you can manage.


and side by side file a petition under section 528 BNS in the respective hon'ble HC to quash the proceedings arising out of the case registered under section 498A by your wife.

Infamous-Simple-9176

Contact saveindianfamily.org immediately.

vbhvch

Hitman on demand, there should be a service for this market as well somewhere

ara4nax

Ok-Zookeepergame2130

Bro, just basic suggestion. Don't try counter in urge. First defend their complaint and also let them prove. BASICALLY KNOW THEIR MOTIVE FIRST .

SettingAi4834

Can you file a fake case against her family members who are close to her. Brother, mother, father?


Or 
Pay some poor SC/ST and file a fake case under SC/ST act on her close family members

Lohe ko loha hi katta h

You need to give her a taste of her own medicine too.

Powerful_Ambition_80

Settle with the wife. It's not worth fighting these cases. Only people who make money are the lawyers. You will reach the same conclusion after 10-15 years if you continue this path.

SaracasticByte

I know you are seeking your own answers here. But, can I request you to share some background information, without disclosing any personal details?

Things like what do you and your wife do for living, how long have you been married, what led to this situation etc.

[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

Violators will be fed to the bear.

---

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

I think that this is expected to make class action lawsuits more attractive and likely to rise in use, since class actions allow relief to be extended to a broader group of affected individuals when a class is certified.  Which would get around the limits being set by this ruling.

siberianmi

I'm not judicial scholar so I could really use some explanation on the impacts of this ruling.


Say the Executive branch declares slavery legal. What is the remedy to halt that action until the (clearly unconstitutional) merits can be argued? A harmed party has to sue in every district and every district needs to issue an injunction? What if not every district agrees? No nationwide injunction can be issued by any court other than the Supreme Court? What is the quickest possible remedy for a potential injured party to stop irreparable harm across the nation from a Federal action?

CMShaffer07

This is an absurd ruling that’s going to enable this administration to all but ignore the Constitution, more than they already have. They’ll continue moving fast, relying on the fact that the people they’re targeting will each individually need to try to contest blatantly unconstitutional actions, and people will fall through the cracks or be unable to afford a defense. Class actions might be a thing, but certifying a class is slow work and will enable the Trump administration to continue flouting the constitution in the meantime. 

Universal injunctions have been a thing throughout the modern judiciary. It’s “weird” that SCOTUS suddenly has a problem with it now, rather than when the right was funneling everything through Kacsmaryk and getting Biden admin policies shut down nationally.

NaivePhilosopher

The other two branches of the government have effectively ceded all their powers and the executive branch has amassed never seen before powers. We really got a king and checks and balances died on the ballot in November 2024. By the way, in all likelihood, by the end of this presidency, we will have six conservative judges on the court with three brand new hacks

Icommandyou

We’ll see how conservatives like it when Judge Kacsmaryk sees his nationwide authority shrink to the Texas Panhandle.  [Plaintiffs can probably start with this](https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-judge-invalidates-biden-rule-protecting-privacy-abortions-2025-06-18/)

harrumphstan

I haven't read the opinion itself yet but I'm a little confused as to whether this applies only to federal district judges but not to the circuit bench or if it's everything up to the Supreme Court.... What happens when a federal judge makes a ruling that gets appealed to a circuit panel? Does it suddenly go from being an individual case to a multistate issue or the circuits still can only hear things on an individual basis? This is a huge power grab for the Supreme Court and the executive. The executive shouldn't be making laws but now they have even more power to (yet again) since they can simply take the L in any district they lose and continue to write whatever laws they want for the rest of the country. The appellate system is now broken, the executive is a law making body and the Supreme Court is the sole decider of the interpretation of the constitution.

Verbanoun

I don't know what the effect will be, but I would bet my house that when the first district judge rules in favor of the GOP against something a Democratic president does the Supreme Court will reverse this.

If this is the case, then a lot of what the GOP has been doing for decades was apparently not legal.

KopOut

At least the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Texas is out of business. It's a little silver lining.

GougeAwayIfYouWant2

I am no lawyer, but if the Democrats ever get back in power, the GOP are going to really regret this decision.

alittledanger

Does this mean that save has to go back into effect or it only applies to nationwide injunctions against trump?

jagannooni

Interesting to note.  They are allowing federal courts to create precedent, but not overarching authority.  This does not change the constitution, nor the judicial oversight.  Simply put, it's a case by case basis.  

TBH, this feels like a SCOTUS cowtowing, without actually giving a win.  Precedent is what case law is all about.  And if one federal court does it......   trickle down.

Successful-Coyote99

It will prevent both sides of the political spectrum from seeking a judge in a US district that is sympathetic to their position and issuing a nationwide injunction. It won't stop a Circuit court from doing the same, but those will be harder to convince since a three-judge panel reviews each case.

Kirchoffs_Law

Im sure this won't have hilariously predictable consequences. Just like when some judges upheld slavery and everyone was cool with there being different laws across the country about how human being should be treated.

bdfull3r

This was such a shitty decision it boggles the mind.

It doesn't cripple district courts or anything like that, but it does further open the spigot on government lawlessness.

Roberts has certainly left his stain on the court, stink too.

What a shitty legacy.

kinkgirlwriter

This is insane:  unconstitutional “ending birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the 14th amendment”?

the supreme court rules that district judges in this case don’t have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions… but they DON’T even consider the constitutionally of the executive order in question.

And without a nationwide injunctions by lower courts, they can just decline to hear the case.

Christ dude.

TiredOfDebates

Nationwide injunctions issued by a district-court level judge have always been controversial. Both Trump and Biden have railed against them, and other Presidents too of course. I've always been pretty skeptical of nationwide district court injunctions, regardless of who was in office. It seems like an inordinate level of power given to a judge at the lowest rung of the Federal judicial ladder. There's a bit over 600 federal district judges and any one of them can unilaterally issue an injunction that affects the entire country.

UnfoldedHeart

Over on reddit conservative they are just wallowing in how much this is upsetting the left. They are so one note and devoid of any critical analysis.

This is objectively a terrible ruling. There is nothing stopping the executive from nullifying any constitutional provision they do not like. Stroke of the pen and the people affected are the only ones who can get relief.

1st amendment? The executive could criminalize speech critical of the government and injunctions would only apply to the specific litigant.

2nd amendment? The executive could say no one with a certain voting history can have automatic weapons.

3rd amendment? The national guard can post up in your house to monitor "antifa" activities.

4th amendment? The executive could mandate that an unlawful search could occur if the accused is a part of an "extremist" ideology

5th amendment? All immigrants, regardless of status, are allowed to be jailed without trial. (This one is already being done)

6th amendment? Your right to an attorney can be removed by a judge or in all cases of "insurrection"

7th amendment? A jury of one for civil trials is allowed

8th? All persons remanded to custody of the US can be interrogated with enhanced methods.

13th amendment? Could bring back slavery and only litigants can challenge it

There are 18 more amendments that can be done away with by the executive at this point. Conservatives don't know what they're cheering on.

SammathNaur1600

Could this mean that individual states could move to have SAVE reinstated for their own particular state?

darksparda4

This Supreme Court is making a mockery of the constitution.  Makes me wonder whatever happened to originalism?  I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when James Madison told this to Washington.

dedward848

i think the point of it is to further overburden courts, while the nazi party gets to break every fucking law in existence to further their nazi agenda.

  
none of you will survive so long as that party continues existing. they're already stealing people, definitely trafficking the children they definitely still constantly lose track off, your economy is dead, the dollar is dying. and its 100% on the gop.

RaidSmolive

Not gonna lie, im actually ok with this ruling someone. Those Rightwing nutjob judges issued injunction after injunction on Biden, and ruined student debt relief among other things. I really dont think a single judge should issue a nationwide stop, it should come from the Supreme Court if im being honest about it.

Tatuski72

https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/district-court-reform-nationwide-injunctions/

Top_Horror3686

Yet another erosion of the power of the judiciary to limit bad behavior by corporations, cops and the rich. 

If no one has confidence in the judicial branch's willingness it ability to enforce the law against bad actors, chaos will ensue from an explosion of vigilantism. 

This is tearing at the very fabric of civilization.

ttystikk

They are laying the groundwork to be able to revoke birthright citizenship, paired with attacks on due process, they are setting it up so they can strip ANYONE of rights at any time for any reason. Rights, as they say, are at the behest of the king. So, basically, civil war *is the plan.*

inkoDe

This ends the rule of law.  

Federal law is now different in Alabama than it is in Maryland. A federal administration will now be able to completely and totally ignore the Constitution, as the Supreme Court will be so overwhelmed with court cases that no judicial remedy will even be possible within the spans of a single President's term.

It is no overstatement to say this is the worst and last SCOTUS ruling in the history of the United States.

ManBearScientist

I think this is really only going to apply to Republican Presidents. When a Democratic President is in office, there will be made up reasons why nationwide injunctions will be ok, because conservative causes are seen as more worthy and important

Shr3kk_Wpg

So here is a scenario. Let’s say White House says the interpretation of 2nd amendment is incorrect and puts an executive order to disarm everyone. And states like NY and California don’t sue. Can the federal government start collecting guns from people in those states ?

epostman

So, will they not all travel to a state where that district judge has blocked them on citizenship from one where a judge hasn't?  What a cluster f.... this is going to be.

bjdevar25

definitely negates the power &amp; influence of certain Western appellate ct circuits, which was the point of this ruling. In the end it adds additional burden on plaintiffs, forcing them to coalesce &amp; strategize to meet the thresholds for class action status. It definitely amounts to a longer delay &amp; gives any administration many months to implement policies as they see fit. This bench clearly feels that's the President's prerogative.

wip30ut

Honestly, given the current political climate, this ruling is by far the lesser of two evils. There should be several firm checks on executive power. But having hundreds of appointed officials that can individually shape national policy every time someone comes whining to them is very Undemocratic. Especially since plaintiffs can shop for a sympathetic judge by filing in the right district.

Far_Realm_Sage

The real problem is when the government is the losing party. It decides not to appeal. The relief is limited to one district.
The anti deportation plaintiffs should seek out judges that will deny their requeats to stop deportation. Then appeal and seek a broader injunction from the Circuit Court and a national injunction from SCOTUS..

Own-Hurry-4061

If he tries much more King shit, we need to take action.  Vote no to Republicans in the midterm election.

mogiej

I agree with the Supreme Court since a lower court judge should have a limited area of influence; district judge.  In the rock paper scissors of checks and balances, It would be like a single Representative, able to make at new law, without a full house vote, to over turn the Supreme Court. There are fewer Representatives than District judge, so each Representative, should carry more weight. If a Representative made a law that Lawyers cannot capitalized on class action suits, but can litigate for free, we can neutralize that. It would need a full House vote or the Supreme Court. 

W

wellwisher-1

District courts are supposed to cover the district they're in. If a city court issues a judgment for all of the country, would anybody think that is okay? Of course not! You don't get to expand your jurisdiction out just because you want to. If you think that's unreasonable, then let me file suit against you and my closest local Court, and get a judgment against you based on Missouri laws and local ordinances. Our courts are set up in a hierarchy so that things can get sorted out on the larger scale higher up. The idea is that if two district courts don't rule the same it goes up to a higher Court to resolve. If claimants in one district wanted to be like in another district under a ruling there, they file suit where they are, and again it can go up to a higher Court. This has always been the way. District Court power is not being rolled back, normality is being enforced.

pauldstew_okiomo

## r/AskIndia is looking for new moderators, [please apply here if you are interested.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskIndia/comments/1gx5qiw/mod_we_are_looking_for_new_moderators_for/)


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskIndia) if you have any questions or concerns.*

The Supreme Court has upheld guidelines to address the misuse of Section 498A related to domestic cruelty, establishing Family Welfare Committees and a cooling-off period before arrests.

Supreme Court Ruling on Misuse of Section 498A

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want