1. Acquittal rates in criminal cases are based on lack of admissible evidence as well as prosecutorial competence, not the actual event or veracity of the complaint. Anyone who actually practises law should be aware of that.
2. Judges' comments can only be about the case that they are dealing with. No judge would comment about misuse in a case where they actually find the person guilty. In addition, since when are those comments anything more than anecdotal? Which judge has backed up his comment with verifiable stats, even if limited to the cases that he himself has dealt with?
3. There is an equally large if not larger number of lawyers arguing exactly the opposite thing. There is a reason statistics and anecdotes merit different treatment.
4. If everyone is filing false cases, how come the accused are not countering with suits for malicious prosecution after getting acquitted?
Remember that for every 498A matter filed, there are hundreds that do not see the light of the day. There is no criminal legal provision that is not susceptible to abuse.

This split decision was expected. One of the judges actually mentioned verbally in the course of proceedings that many high courts were openly commenting that this is all a facade; that things will end up in the SC after a split verdict; judges are merely engaging in a drama.

At the SC, depending on the CJI and then the Bench (and of course the political "mahoul") the SC is likely going to lob this off to the Executive/Legislature. If there is softening or weakening of the ruling establishment, SC may give voice to its "preferences" through oral observations or even a powerful dissent (because the SC will do a split and bump it to a higher bench and docket politics will continue).

There are enough examples. Not too hard to guess. And this has played out before as well.