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 cleanest way through this is to state the rule first, then see which option's stated reason actually matches both the rule and the facts, since two of the four options land on the right outcome-word for the wrong reason.

1. Yes, since Ashwin had only asked Ashima to do their household work, and not for others: the reasoning given here would actually support "no" under the Court's rule, so this option is internally inconsistent and can be set aside.
2. No, since Ashwin had only asked Ashima to do their household work, and not for others: both the outcome and the reason are consistent with the rule, chores for their own family only is exactly what the Court said falls short of maid servant treatment.
3. Yes, since Ashwin had asked Ashima to do household work for themselves as well as others: introduces a fact ("as well as others") that never appears in the scenario, so it cannot be the right answer regardless of its outcome.
4. No, since treating a married woman like a maid servant would not amount to an offence under that Section: the outcome word is right but the stated legal reason is false, the passage says such treatment would be an offence, so this cannot be the correctly reasoned option.

Checking reason-and-outcome together, rather than outcome alone, leaves only one option that is fully consistent with both the facts and the rule.

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

Answer 2

Rather than judging how bad Rakesh's behaviour was first, the more direct route is to check the threshold question the section itself sets: does it even apply to this person.

1. No, since Rakesh's actions were perfectly justifiable for a man who does not get a well-cooked meal: wrong reasoning, nothing in the facts justifies abusive language or throwing a plate, this option excuses conduct that is not excusable.
2. Yes, since Rakesh's use of abusive language and throwing the plate at Ashima clearly amount to cruelty: correctly reads the conduct as cruel in an ordinary sense, but ignores that Section 498A is not a general cruelty provision, it only reaches a husband or his relatives.
3. No, since Rakesh is not her husband, nor is he related to Ashwin: this is the threshold point that decides the case. Rakesh is a friend visiting the home, not a relative by blood or marriage and not the husband, so Section 498A simply does not reach him, whatever he did.
4. Yes, since Rakesh was staying at Ashwin and Ashima's home at the time of the incident: being a house guest is not the same as being a relative, this option treats physical presence as if it were a family relationship, which the section does not.

Checking who the section covers before asking what the person did is what separates the right option from the two "yes" options here.

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

Answer 3

A useful first step with any Section 498A scenario is to fix a timeline, marriage, then conduct, then check whether the cruel conduct falls inside or outside the marriage.

1. Yes, since Ashwin has, as we are told, treated her cruelly: true as a bare fact, but it skips the timeline, the cruelty happens after the divorce, not during the marriage.
2. Yes, since Ashwin has been her husband: relies on past tense status, but the section targets a husband's conduct toward his wife as an ongoing relationship, a former husband does not carry that status forward automatically.
3. No, since Ashwin was understandably upset at Ashima's behaviour: reaches "no" but through an excuse for bad behaviour rather than the actual legal reason, this does not hold up as sound reasoning.
4. No, since she is no longer married to Ashwin: matches the timeline directly, the divorce came first, in November 2020, and the cruel treatment came after, so at the time of the conduct Ashwin was not her husband under the section.

Once the timeline is laid out clearly, divorce first, cruelty after, only one option correctly ties the outcome to that sequence.

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

Answer 4

The operative rule here is the PoMWA's retrospective window: it reaches conduct up to three years before its own commencement in January 2021, and it does not matter that the couple is no longer married. Section 498A of the IPC is a separate question altogether, and at this point in the timeline it has not yet been amended to cover household chores.

1. Option (A): Flips the correct result: it grants a 498A conviction that the unamended Section does not support, while denying the PoMWA compensation that the retroactivity clause clearly provides. Wrong on both counts.
2. Option (B): Matches the timeline exactly. Ashwin's alleged conduct sits within the three-year retroactive window of the PoMWA, and the marriage having possibly ended by now does not matter under that law, so compensation follows. Section 498A, however, has not been touched by any amendment yet, so it offers Ashima nothing.
3. Option (C): Wrongly stretches Section 498A to cover conduct it does not reach until it is amended, so the 498A half of this option cannot stand even though the PoMWA half is correct.
4. Option (D): Ignores the retroactivity language of the PoMWA entirely; a law built to reach three years back and to survive divorce cannot be read as giving Ashima nothing.

The correct option is (B): Ashima recovers under the PoMWA but has no valid claim under Section 498A of the IPC.

Answer 5

The governing rule by this point in the timeline is the amended Section 498A itself, which now treats forcing a wife to handle household chores alone as cruelty. Everything turns on whether Shamita's facts match that amended text, not on Ashima's personal history or her role as a mere friend.

1. Option (A): Correct. Shamita's husband forcing her to do all the housework alone is exactly the conduct the amended Section 498A now punishes, so Ashima's advice is sound.
2. Option (B): Ashima losing her own case against Ashwin says nothing about Shamita's situation; each case turns on its own facts and, likely, on whether the conduct occurred before or after the amendment took effect.
3. Option (C): Names the wrong statute. It is Section 498A as amended, not the PoMWA, that criminalises this conduct, so crediting the PoMWA gets the legal basis wrong even though the bottom line happens to be yes.
4. Option (D): Confuses who can lodge a complaint with what the law substantively prohibits. Ashima is only offering advice about the offence, and that question does not depend on her being entitled to file a complaint herself.

The correct option is (A): the amended Section 498A now covers exactly this conduct, so Ashima's advice to Shamita is correct.