Dowry Harassment and Cruelty Cases in Hyderabad: What the Law Says

This guide is for two groups of readers in Hyderabad and Telangana: women, and their families, facing cruelty or dowry demands in a marriage, and husbands and their relatives who have been named in a complaint of cruelty or dowry harassment. It explains what the law says about the offence of cruelty under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which took the place of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, how the police deal with such complaints, arrest and anticipatory bail, what the Supreme Court has said about complaints against relatives and about settlement, and a woman’s right to her stridhan.

The offence of cruelty · The Dowry Prohibition Act · Complaint and police procedure · Arrest and anticipatory bail · Complaints against relatives · The “cooling period” orders · Settlement and quashing · Stridhan · Dowry death and suicide · Where to go in Telangana

The offence of cruelty (BNS sections 85 and 86)

Section 85 of the BNS says: “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.” This is the same wording as section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which was repealed when the new criminal laws came into force on 1 July 2024. A complaint about events before that date may still refer to section 498A.

Section 86 defines “cruelty” in two parts:

• Serious harm: “(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman”; or
• Harassment for property: “(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

The second part does not use the word “dowry”; it speaks of “any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security”.

A court can take cognizance of an offence under section 85 only on a police report, or on a complaint by the woman, “or by her father, mother, brother, sister or by her father’s or mother’s brother or sister or, with the leave of the Court, by any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption” (BNSS section 220).

The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

• What “dowry” means: “any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly” by one party to a marriage to the other, or by the parents of either party or any other person, “at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties”, but not “dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies” (section 2).
• Giving or taking: a person who “gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry” is punishable with imprisonment of not less than five years and a fine of not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the value of the dowry, whichever is more; the court may impose a lower term “for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment” (section 3(1)).
• Wedding presents: section 3(1) does not apply to presents given at the time of the marriage to the bride or the bridegroom “without any demand having been made in that behalf”, if they are entered in a list kept under the rules; presents from the bride’s side must also be “of a customary nature” and not excessive “having regard to the financial status” of the giver (section 3(2)).
• Demanding dowry: demanding any dowry, directly or indirectly, from the parents, relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom is punishable with imprisonment of not less than six months and up to two years, and fine up to ten thousand rupees (section 4).
• Agreements: “Any agreement for the giving or taking of dowry shall be void” (section 5).
• Dowry belongs to the woman: where dowry is received by anyone other than the woman, “that person shall transfer it to the woman” within three months and meanwhile “shall hold it in trust for the benefit of the woman”; failure is an offence (section 6).
• Statement of the person aggrieved: “a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act” (section 7(3)). A complaint may be made by the person aggrieved, a parent or other relative, or “any recognised welfare institution or organisation” (section 7(1)).
• Bail and arrest: “Every offence under this Act shall be non-bailable and non-compoundable” (section 8(2)), although the heading of section 8 still uses the older word “bailable”. Section 8(1) applies criminal procedure to these offences as if they were cognizable for investigation, but not for “the arrest of a person without a warrant or without an order of a Magistrate”.
• Burden of proof: where a person is prosecuted for taking or abetting the taking of dowry under section 3, or demanding dowry under section 4, “the burden of proving that he had not committed an offence under those sections shall be on him” (section 8A).
• Dowry Prohibition Officers: “The State Government may appoint as many Dowry Prohibition Officers as it thinks fit” (section 8B).

The complaint and police procedure

• FIR: information about a cognizable offence may be given to the officer in charge of a police station “irrespective of the area where the offence is committed”, orally or by electronic communication; information given electronically “shall be taken on record by him on being signed within three days by the person giving it”, and a copy of the FIR “shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant or the victim” (BNSS section 173(1) and (2)).
• Preliminary enquiry: for a cognizable offence “which is made punishable for three years or more but less than seven years”, the officer in charge “may”, with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, conduct a preliminary enquiry “to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter within a period of fourteen days”, or proceed with investigation where a prima facie case exists (section 173(3)).
• If the police do not register an FIR: the person may send the substance of the information “in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned”, and then apply to the Magistrate (section 173(4)).

Arrest and anticipatory bail

For offences punishable with up to seven years, such as section 85, section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS allows arrest without a warrant on a complaint or suspicion only if the officer “has reason to believe” the person committed the offence and “is satisfied that such arrest is necessary” for one of the purposes the section lists, and the officer must record reasons in writing for arresting, and also for not arresting. (Other clauses of section 35(1) are separate grounds of arrest.) Where arrest is not required, the officer “shall” issue a notice to appear. “Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested” (section 35(3) to (5)).

The Supreme Court’s main ruling on arrest, Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar (2014), arose from a case under section 498A and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court directed all State Governments “to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest”, said the officer “must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve?”, and directed that a notice of appearance under section 41A of the old Code “be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case”, extendable by the Superintendent of Police for recorded reasons. These directions were framed under the old Code of Criminal Procedure. In a Telangana case decided by the Supreme Court in December 2024, Dara Lakshmi Narayana, the Telangana High Court had directed the investigating officer to follow section 41-A and the Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

Anticipatory bail: because section 85 is non-bailable, a person who “has reason to believe that he may be arrested” may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session, “and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail” (BNSS section 482(1)). It is discretionary, and the court may impose conditions, including that the person “shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required” and shall not leave India without permission. In Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v Union of India (2018) the Supreme Court left in place an earlier direction that “recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail”.

Complaints against relatives

The Supreme Court has examined many cases in which the husband’s relatives were named. It has spoken both of misuse and of genuine cases, and has decided each case on its own facts.

• Kahkashan Kausar v State of Bihar (2022): the Court said “false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law”, and quashed the case against the in-laws because “none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role”. It quoted its earlier decision in K. Subba Rao v State of Telangana (2018): “The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” It also quoted Preeti Gupta v State of Jharkhand (2010), which spoke of complaints “filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues” and also said “rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern”.
• Dara Lakshmi Narayana v State of Telangana (10 December 2024): in an appeal from the Telangana High Court about an FIR registered at Neredmet police station, the Court found the allegations “vague and omnibus”, with no “time, date, place, or manner” of harassment, and said: “A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud.” It spoke of “a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A”, and in the same judgment said: “We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding.” On those facts it quashed the proceedings against the husband and five relatives.

For a woman making a complaint, these judgments show why courts look for specific facts about each person named: what was done or said, by whom, and when. For a person named in a complaint, they show what the courts examined; whether a particular case can be quashed depends on its own facts.

The “cooling period” and Family Welfare Committee orders

• 2017: in Rajesh Sharma v State of U.P., a two-judge bench directed that Family Welfare Committees be set up in every district and that “Till report of the committee is received, no arrest should normally be effected.”
• 2018: in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar, a three-judge bench declared the directions on Family Welfare Committees and their powers “impermissible”, said that “The legislature in its wisdom has made the offence under Section 498-A IPC cognizable and non-bailable. The fault lies with the investigating agency which sometimes jumps into action without application of mind”, and directed investigating officers to be guided by Arnesh Kumar and other judgments, with State police chiefs ensuring “rigorous training” for officers handling such cases.
• 2022: the Allahabad High Court, in an order of 13 June 2022, framed guidelines including a two-month “Cooling-Period” after an FIR or complaint during which no arrest or “police action to nab the named accused persons” would be made, with the matter referred to a Family Welfare Committee in each district. The order was sent to Uttar Pradesh authorities.
• 2025: in Shivangi Bansal v Sahib Bansal (22 July 2025), a judgment marked non-reportable that settled a group of cases between two families, the Supreme Court said the Allahabad High Court’s guidelines in paragraphs 32 to 38 of that order “shall remain in effect and be implemented by the appropriate authorities”. The Supreme Court’s judgment does not itself set out the two-month period or say which States it covers.

How these orders apply to a complaint in Telangana is a question to take advice on; the courts’ own words are given above.

Settlement and quashing

An offence under section 85 cannot be compounded, and “No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section” (BNSS section 359(9)). The Law Commission of India recommended in 2011 (Report No. 237) that section 498A be made compoundable with the court’s permission; the BNSS did not include it in either compounding table.

Where the parties settle, the route the Supreme Court described in Social Action Forum (2018) is the High Court: “When settlement takes place, then both the parties can file a petition under Section 482 CrPC and the High Court, considering the bonafide of the petition, may quash the same.” The BNSS preserves the inherent powers of the High Court “to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice” (section 528). The High Court “may” quash; it is not automatic.

Stridhan

In Mulakala Malleshwara Rao v State of Telangana (29 August 2024), the Supreme Court quoted its three-judge decision in Pratibha Rani v Suraj Kumar (1985) that a Hindu married woman “is the absolute owner of such property and can deal with it in any manner she likes”, and that “Ordinarily, the husband has no right or interest in it” except that “in times of extreme distress” he can use it but “is morally bound to restore it or its value”. It also quoted Rashmi Kumar v Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997): properties gifted to her “before the marriage, at the time of marriage or at the time of giving farewell or thereafter are her stridhana properties”.

• Her claim, not her father’s: in the same case the Court said that “a husband has no right, and it has to then be necessarily concluded that a father too, has no right when the daughter is alive, well, and entirely capable of making decisions such as pursuing the cause of the recovery of her ‘stridhan'”. On the facts, it quashed a case brought by the father more than twenty years after the marriage.
• Gifts and entrustment: the Court also repeated that “giving dowry and traditional presents at the time of the wedding does not raise a presumption that such articles are thereby entrusted to the parents-in-law so as to attract the ingredients of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.”
• Domestic violence proceedings: under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, “The Magistrate may direct the respondent to return to the possession of the aggrieved person her stridhan or any other property or valuable security to which she is entitled to” (section 19(8)). See our guide on domestic violence cases in Hyderabad.

Dowry death and suicide

Where a woman dies “by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage” and it is shown that “soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry”, the death is called “dowry death”, and the husband or relative “shall be deemed to have caused her death” (BNS section 80(1)). The punishment is imprisonment of not less than seven years, which may extend to imprisonment for life (section 80(2)). It is cognizable, non-bailable and triable by a Court of Session.

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 contains two presumptions. Where a woman committed suicide within seven years of marriage and her husband or his relative had subjected her to cruelty, the court “may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case”, that the suicide was abetted by them (section 117). Where the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman, and it is shown that soon before her death she had been subjected by that person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court “shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death” (section 118).

Where to go in Telangana

• Emergency and helplines: the Telangana Police website lists “Police: 112” and “Women Helpline Number: 181 / 112”.
• Domestic Violence Module: the Telangana Police Women Safety Wing says its Domestic Violence Module aims “to deal with issues related to domestic violence and dowry harassment”; it is headed by a Deputy Superintendent of Police and is based at the Women Safety Wing office, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. Current contact numbers are on the Women Safety Wing website.
• Family counselling centres: the Women Safety Wing’s CDEW Family Counselling Centres in the Hyderabad, Cyberabad and Rachakonda commissionerate areas offer counselling and referral to police protection, legal services and shelter. The Women Safety Wing says: “it is mandatory to visit the police station and report the issue with the police station, then get the petition number and acknowledgement to visit the CDEW FCC Center for counselling.” Counselling is separate from a criminal complaint.
• Other units: by their own pages, SHE Teams deal with harassment in public places, stalking and online or phone harassment, and Bharosa centres list sexual offences; dowry and domestic cruelty are handled through the Domestic Violence Module and the police station.

Related guides: family and divorce, domestic violence, contested divorce, maintenance and rights on arrest.

For a discussion about a cruelty or dowry case with Musab Hashmi & Associates, call +91 89771 24916 or send an enquiry. Do not include identity numbers or copies of documents in the first message.

General legal information, not legal advice. Checked on 28 October 2026 against the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Gazette texts of 25 December 2023), the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (repealed text), the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (India Code text as amended), the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Supreme Court’s judgments in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v State of Telangana (10 December 2024), Mulakala Malleshwara Rao v State of Telangana (29 August 2024), Shivangi Bansal v Sahib Bansal (22 July 2025) and Satender Kumar Antil v CBI (11 July 2022, quoting Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar, 2014) (official copies), Supreme Court Reports copies of Arnesh Kumar, Rajesh Sharma v State of U.P. (2017), Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v Union of India (2018), Kahkashan Kausar v State of Bihar (2022) and Preeti Gupta v State of Jharkhand (2010), a copy of the Allahabad High Court’s order of 13 June 2022 in Criminal Revision No. 1126 of 2022, Law Commission of India Report No. 237 (2011), a notification of the Orissa High Court on the commencement of the new criminal laws, and the Telangana Police and Women Safety Wing websites.