Similar question was raised some gentleman in family forum and I gave a lengthy reply. I copy paste it for your purpose. See, if it is any useful for you:
You have to move an application under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. seeking the acquittal of the accused on the ground that the complainant has not appeared for the prosecution despite several summons served upon her. It is difficult at H.C. level to find out Section 256 relief only in S.498-A cases. But the S.C. guidelines about how the magistrate has to exercise his discretionary power while exercising powers u/s. 256 are helpful - Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshjvanand (1998 Cr.L.R. 856). The accused has got a right for speedy trial. So, it is the magistrate's responsibility to strike a balance between the conflicting rights of accused's right of speedy trial and the complainant's right of full and proper adjudication. But, if the complainant absents herself without having any reason, certainly the balance tilts towards the accused. So, in your application, you have to give date wise proceedings that on which dates she was summoned, how she did not appear without assigning any reason and the mechanical adjournment of the case glaring over the travails the accused faces to appear criminal trials. While drafting this application, keep in mind that if your application is rejected, you would be going to H.C. under Section 482 read with Art. 20 of Constitution of India and also U/Art. 226 and 227 challenging the magistrate's order of continuing the criminal prosecution. So, craft the draft meticulously. For your benefit, I am quoting the relevant part of the above said judgment.
“4. The Supreme Court in the case in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshjvanand,1998 Crl.L.R. 856, has held as follows—
‘Two constraints are imposed on the Court for exercising the power under Section 256. First is, if the Court thinks that in a situation it is proper to adjourn the hearing, then the Magistrate shall not acquit the accused. Second is, when the Magistrate considers that personal attendance of the Complainant is not necessary on that day, the Magistrate has the power to dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. When the Court notices that the Complainant is absent on a particular day, the Court must consider whether personal attendance of the complainant is essential on that day for the progress of the case and also whether the situation does not justify the case being adjourned to another date due to any other reason. If the situation does not justify the case being adjourned the Court is free to dismiss the Complaint and acquit the accused. But if the presence of the Complainant on that date was quite unnecessary, then resorting to the step of axing down the Complaint may not be proper exercise of power envisaged in the section. The discretion must, therefore, be exercised judicially and fairly without impairing the cause of administration of Criminal justice‘. ”
But the thing in Section 498-A is that the complainant is the only and only material witness. Her absence and lack of her evidence before the court is a sure thing that the accused will be acquitted. Other witnesses, except MIL and FIL are formal witnesses and prove nothing without the deposition of the complainant. So, if the magistrate adopts dilatory tactics of prolonging the case by calling formal witnesses without first presenting the material witness is the exercise in frutaility. On these lines you prepare the application to get favourable orders either before the magistrate or if necessary before the High Court.