In Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal, decided on 22 July 2025, the Supreme Court directed that the Allahabad High Court's 2022 safeguards on Section 498A IPC (now Section 85 BNS) operate across the country. In the cases they cover, no arrest or coercive action is to be taken for two months from the FIR or complaint; the matter goes instead to a district Family Welfare Committee constituted under the District Legal Services Authority, which hears both sides and reports back before the police or the Magistrate proceed.
Two things happen when this is explained badly. A complainant is told her case has been "put on hold" and assumes the law has stopped protecting her. An accused family is told there will be no arrest for two months and treats it as a discharge. Both readings cause real damage in the weeks that matter most, and neither is what the order says.
What the order actually directs
The Court did not write fresh guidelines. It restored a set already framed by the Allahabad High Court in Mukesh Bansal v. State of U.P. (13 June 2022) and made them operative nationally, using its powers under Article 142. The core of it is short.
- For two months from the lodging of the complaint or FIR — the "cooling period" — no arrest and no coercive police action against the persons named.
- The complaint is referred to the Family Welfare Committee of the district, constituted under the District Legal Services Authority.
- The Committee summons both sides, who may attend with up to four senior family elders, and attempts to understand and settle the dispute.
- The Committee submits a report. The Investigating Officer and the Magistrate must consider it before taking the matter further.
- Committee members cannot later be summoned as witnesses in the proceedings they examined.
- Matrimonial FIRs are to be handled by specially trained investigating officers.
- If the parties settle during the cooling period, the District and Sessions Judge — or a senior judicial officer nominated for the purpose — may dispose of the proceedings, including quashing the FIR where that is appropriate.
Which cases the route covers — and which it does not
This is the part most commentary skips, and it decides whether any of the above applies to you at all. The referral route was framed for matrimonial cruelty complaints of ordinary gravity. Where the FIR carries allegations of serious physical injury or death, or offences punishable with ten years or more, the Committee route falls away and the investigation proceeds normally.
| If the FIR alleges | Committee route | What follows |
|---|---|---|
| Section 85 BNS / 498A with allied sections, no serious injury | Applies | Two-month cooling period, referral, report to the Magistrate |
| Serious physical injury alleged | Does not apply | Investigation and arrest powers continue as usual |
| Dowry death or an offence punishable with ten years or more | Does not apply | No cooling period; move for protection immediately |
| Stridhan claims under Section 316 BNS added to the FIR | Depends on the gravity of the whole FIR | Read the sections invoked, not the label |
Why practitioners are cautious about it
There is an honest complication here, and a firm that hides it is not being useful. The Family Welfare Committee mechanism has a difficult history. The Supreme Court created it in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. (2017); a three-judge bench in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (2018) removed the mandatory committee requirement, reasoning that a screening body with no basis in the Code was a matter for Parliament rather than the courts. The Allahabad High Court framed the guidelines again in 2022, and the 2025 order restored them.
The practical consequence of that history is uneven implementation. Whether a functioning committee exists in a given district, how quickly it lists a matter, and how seriously the police treat the two-month bar all vary. The first question worth asking about your own matter is not what the law says — it is whether the committee in the district where the FIR was registered is actually constituted and sitting.
If a complaint has been filed against you
The two months are protection, not resolution. Used well, they are the best preparation window a matrimonial accused ever gets; used to disappear, they end badly.
- Obtain the FIR and read which sections are actually invoked before assuming the cooling period applies.
- Appear before the Committee, and appear prepared. Non-appearance is recorded and it is noticed.
- Do not contact the complainant directly. In a matrimonial matter it reads as pressure, whatever the intention.
- Assemble the documentary record now — messages, transfers, travel, medical papers — rather than after the report goes to the Magistrate.
- Take advice on anticipatory bail in parallel. The cooling period is not a substitute for it, and it does not survive the two months.
If you are the complainant
The order restrains arrest in the covered cases. It does not restrain your other remedies, and this is where a great deal of avoidable suffering happens — a woman is told to "wait for the committee" when the reliefs she actually needs are available immediately and independently.
| Relief | Where it is sought | Affected by the cooling period? |
|---|---|---|
| Protection, residence and monetary orders under the Domestic Violence Act | Magistrate's court | No — an independent proceeding |
| Maintenance under Section 144 BNSS | Magistrate's court | No |
| Interim maintenance in a matrimonial petition | Family Court, Pune | No |
| Investigation into the complaint itself | Police | Continues; only arrest and coercive action are barred |
The bottom line
Treat the eight weeks as a working period with a deadline, not a pause. For the accused it is the window to build a documented answer and to secure protection for what comes after; for the complainant it is the window to move the reliefs that were never suspended in the first place. Either way, the first step is the same one it has always been in a matrimonial FIR: read the sections, then take advice — in days, not weeks.