Question

Ashwin and Ashima were married in February 2020. In March 2020, Ashwin asked Ashima to take care of all their household work, such as cooking, cleaning, and other domestic chores, as he was very busy with his professional responsibilities. Ashima claims that this amounts to treating her like a maid servant and constitutes an offence under Section 498A of the IPC. Applying the Bombay High Court decision, is she likely to succeed?

• A. Yes, since Ashwin had only asked Ashima to do their household work, and not for others.
• B. No, since Ashwin had only asked Ashima to do their household work, and not for others.
• C. Yes, since Ashwin had asked Ashima to do household work for themselves as well as others.
• D. No, since treating a married woman like a maid servant would not amount to an offence under that Section.
• A. No, since Rakesh’s actions were perfectly justifiable for a man who does not get a well-cooked meal.
• B. Yes, since Rakesh’s use of abusive language and throwing the plate at Ashima clearly amount to cruelty.
• C. No, since Rakesh is not her husband, nor is he related to Ashwin.
• D. Yes, since Rakesh was staying at Ashwin and Ashima’s home at the time of the incident.
• A. Yes, since Ashwin has, as we are told, treated her cruelly
• B. Yes, since Ashwin has been her husband.
• C. No, since Ashwin was understandably upset at Ashima’s behaviour
• D. No, since she is no longer married to Ashwin.
• A. Ashima is right about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, but she will not get compensation under the PoMWA.
• B. Ashima will get compensation under the PoMWA, but she is not right about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
• C. Ashima will get compensation under the PoMWA, and she is also right about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
• D. Ashima will neither get compensation under the PoMWA, nor is she right about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
• A. Yes, since Section 498A has now been changed, and Shamita’s husband’s actions would now be an offence under the changed Section 498A.
• B. No, since Ashima has been unsuccessful in having Ashwin convicted under that Section in the past.
• C. Yes, since the passing of the Protection of Married Women Act has resulted in Shamita’s husband’s actions being made illegal.
• D. No, since Ashima is only Shamita’s friend, and only the married woman herself can file a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

The correct option is (B):No, since Ashwin had only asked Ashima to do their household work, and not for others .

Answer 2

Applying the Bombay High Court's rule from the passage, being asked to do household work for one's own family is not, by itself, being treated like a maid servant, so each option needs to be checked against that rule and against what Ashwin actually asked for.

1. Yes, since Ashwin had only asked Ashima to do their household work, and not for others: this option reaches "yes" (that she will succeed) but for a reason that actually points the other way, work done only for their own household, not others, is precisely the situation the Court said is not maid servant treatment, so this answer's reasoning contradicts its own conclusion.
2. No, since Ashwin had only asked Ashima to do their household work, and not for others: this matches the facts exactly. Ashwin asked Ashima to handle cooking, cleaning, and chores for their own home only, nothing suggests she was made to work for outsiders or treated as a servant beyond ordinary domestic duties. Under the Court's rule, this does not amount to maid servant treatment, so she is not likely to succeed.
3. Yes, since Ashwin had asked Ashima to do household work for themselves as well as others: the facts given say nothing about Ashima doing work for anyone outside their own household, so this option relies on a fact that is not in the scenario at all.
4. No, since treating a married woman like a maid servant would not amount to an offence under that Section: this gets the "no" outcome right but for the wrong reason, the passage says the opposite, that genuinely treating a woman like a maid servant would be an offence under Section 498A. The real reason she fails is that she was not treated like a maid servant on these facts, not that such treatment is not an offence.

The scenario mirrors the Bombay High Court's own facts closely: ordinary household chores asked of a wife for her own family's benefit, which the Court held does not meet the standard for cruelty under Section 498A.

Therefore, the correct answer is No, since Ashwin had only asked Ashima to do their household work, and not for others.

Answer 3

The correct option is (C):No, since Rakesh is not her husband, nor is he related to Ashwin .

Answer 4

Section 498A of the IPC, as described in the passage, applies to a husband or a relative of the husband who subjects a woman to cruelty, so the first question for any option is whether Rakesh even fits within that class of people, before considering how badly he behaved.

1. No, since Rakesh's actions were perfectly justifiable for a man who does not get a well-cooked meal: this reaches "no" but for a reason that has nothing to do with the actual legal rule, and it wrongly excuses genuinely abusive behaviour, using abusive language and throwing a plate is not justified by a poorly cooked meal.
2. Yes, since Rakesh's use of abusive language and throwing the plate at Ashima clearly amount to cruelty: the conduct described is indeed serious and would likely count as cruelty if committed by someone covered by the section, but this option skips over whether Rakesh, a mere house guest, is even a person the section applies to.
3. No, since Rakesh is not her husband, nor is he related to Ashwin: Section 498A only covers the husband himself or his relatives. Rakesh is described only as Ashwin's friend who is visiting and staying with them, nothing suggests he is related to Ashwin by blood or marriage. Since he falls outside the category of people the section applies to, Ashima cannot succeed against him under this specific section, regardless of how badly he behaved.
4. Yes, since Rakesh was staying at Ashwin and Ashima's home at the time of the incident: merely staying as a guest in the house does not make someone a "relative of the husband" for the purposes of the section, so this option confuses physical presence with the legal relationship the section actually requires.

Even serious misconduct does not bring a case within Section 498A unless the person accused is the husband or a relative of the husband, and Rakesh is neither.

Therefore, the correct answer is No, since Rakesh is not her husband, nor is he related to Ashwin.

Answer 5

The correct option is (D):No, since she is no longer married to Ashwin .

Answer 6

Section 498A of the IPC, as described in the passage, punishes a husband or relative of the husband who subjects "a woman" to cruelty in the context of that marriage, so it matters whether Ashwin and Ashima are still married when the cruel treatment happens.

1. Yes, since Ashwin has, as we are told, treated her cruelly: the facts do describe cruel treatment, but this option ignores the fact that the divorce was already granted in November 2020, before this treatment began, and treats the cruelty alone as enough without checking whether the marital relationship the section is built around still exists.
2. Yes, since Ashwin has been her husband: this relies on Ashwin's past status as husband, but the section is concerned with the relationship between a husband and his wife, once the divorce is granted, that status ends going forward, and the past fact of having once been married does not keep the section alive indefinitely.
3. No, since Ashwin was understandably upset at Ashima's behaviour: this reaches "no" for the wrong reason, being upset does not excuse cruel treatment, and this option does not engage with the actual legal issue at all.
4. No, since she is no longer married to Ashwin: Ashima and Ashwin's divorce was finalised in November 2020, before Ashwin began treating her cruelly. Since Section 498A is about a husband's cruelty toward his wife, and the marriage had already ended, Ashwin is no longer her husband within the meaning of the section when the conduct occurs.

The timing here is decisive: the cruelty described happens after the marriage has already ended, taking Ashwin outside the category of people Section 498A can be used against.

Therefore, the correct answer is No, since she is no longer married to Ashwin.

Answer 7

The correct option is (B): Ashima will get compensation under the PoMWA, but she is not right about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.

Answer 8

Two separate legal regimes are at play here: the pre-existing offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC as it stood before it was amended, and the brand new compensation scheme created by the PoMWA in January 2021. The two are not co-extensive, and Ashima's claim has to be tested against each of them separately rather than treated as a single package.

1. Option (A): This option holds that Ashwin committed an offence under Section 498A but that Ashima gets no compensation under the PoMWA. That gets the analysis backwards on both limbs: Section 498A, before any amendment brought household chores within cruelty, did not treat a mere request to handle domestic chores as an offence, so there is no 498A liability to speak of, and the PoMWA's compensation clause, being retroactive to three years before its commencement and applicable even to former spouses, plainly covers Ashwin's conduct. Both conclusions in this option are wrong.
2. Option (B): This is the accurate reading. The PoMWA's compensation clause reaches back to conduct occurring within three years before the law's commencement and applies even where the couple is no longer married, both conditions Ashima's case satisfies, since her allegations concern Ashwin's past conduct and the PoMWA does not require an ongoing marriage. But Section 498A itself, unamended at the time Ashima raises this claim, does not criminalise merely asking a woman to handle household chores, so her separate assertion that Ashwin is guilty under that Section fails.
3. Option (C): This option would be correct only if the household-chores conduct were also an offence under Section 498A at the relevant time. It is not: nothing in the facts suggests Section 498A had been amended before Ashima raises this claim, so calling Ashwin's conduct a 498A offence is legally wrong even though the compensation claim under the PoMWA succeeds.
4. Option (D): This option denies Ashima any relief at all, but that ignores the express retroactivity clause of the PoMWA. A law that reaches back three years and survives the end of the marriage was clearly drafted to catch exactly this kind of past conduct, so denying compensation altogether misreads the statute.

Ashima succeeds only on the compensation front. The PoMWA's retroactive reach and its indifference to the marriage having ended mean Ashwin's past conduct falls squarely within it, while the unchanged Section 498A gives her no criminal remedy for the same conduct.

Hence, the correct answer is Ashima will get compensation under the PoMWA, but she is not right about Ashwin committing an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.

Answer 9

The correct option is (A): Yes, since Section 498A has now been changed, and Shamita’s husband’s actions would now be an offence under the changed Section 498A.

Answer 10

By March 2021, Section 498A of the IPC itself has been amended so that making a married woman single-handedly perform household chores, even for her own family, now counts as cruelty and is punishable under that Section. The question is simply whether Shamita's situation, arising after this amendment takes effect, falls within the newly worded provision, and whether anything about Ashima's own unrelated case or her standing as a mere friend changes that analysis.

1. Option (A): This is correct. Shamita's husband is forcing her to handle all household work by herself, which is precisely the conduct the amended Section 498A now labels as cruelty. Since the amendment is already in force by the time Ashima gives her advice, her statement that this amounts to an offence under Section 498A is legally accurate.
2. Option (B): Ashima's personal failure to get Ashwin convicted has no bearing on Shamita's case. That earlier episode may well have occurred before the amendment, or may have failed for reasons specific to Ashwin's facts or evidence, either way, one person's unsuccessful case does not change what the amended statute says about a different person's conduct.
3. Option (C): This reaches the right practical outcome for the wrong reason. It is the amendment to Section 498A itself, not the PoMWA's compensation scheme, that makes Shamita's husband's conduct an offence under that Section. The PoMWA is a distinct statute dealing with compensation, and crediting it with criminalising conduct under Section 498A misstates which law is doing the work.
4. Option (D): Whether only the married woman herself can file a complaint under Section 498A is a question about who may set the criminal process in motion, not about whether Shamita's husband's conduct qualifies as an offence in the first place. Ashima is merely advising Shamita on the law, not filing a complaint on her behalf, so this procedural point does not make her advice wrong.

Ashima's advice is correct because it tracks the amended text of Section 498A directly: forcing a wife to single-handedly manage household chores is now cruelty under that provision, regardless of Ashima's own past litigation history or who happens to be delivering the advice.

Hence, the correct answer is Yes, since Section 498A has now been changed, and Shamita's husband's actions would now be an offence under the changed Section 498A.