Yoginder Kandhari
Section 498a, ever since its insertion in Indian Penal Code in 1983, has been a case of letting loose a ‘legal’ monster. Besides providing an additional tool to the law enforcing agencies to make some quick bucks from hapless and ignorant victims of this legal abuse, instances are galore wherein estranged wives exacted astronomical sums from husbands and their relatives who are often compelled to settle for unjust out-of-court compromises under ever-looming shadow of humiliating police detention followed by long drawn legal battles. Originally, the law was enacted with a laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife, particularly when such a cruelty had the potential to result in suicide or murder. There might have been compelling reasons then for lawmakers to enact a law to curb the menace of domestic violence and reprehensible dowry demands by the grooms and their families yet what they enacted was so lopsided a law that humiliated and harassed innumerable innocents, besmirched reputations and tore many a family asunder. Apex Court aptly termed its misuse as ‘Legal Terrorism’.
Laws are, after all, made for the society. Dominant societal and judicial perception that women are always the victims, who prefer to silently suffer injustice rather than bring family to disrepute by talking such conflicts outside of their homes, was probably the rationale to frame this law, as it has been. That logic may not be wholly relevant today. Then why continue with a law so awkwardly skewed in favour of women? Society has long evolved from those dark pre-1983 days hence a compelling need to amend/dilute such a law and its draconian provisions. Section 498a often encourages women to file false and frivolous complaints against their husbands and in-laws to subject them to untold humiliation leaving behind indelible psychological scars and social stigma.
As the menace of its misuse assumed alarming proportions, judiciary gradually attempted to remedy the situation. In one case, a woman ‘victim’ implicated her brother-in-law in some dowry harassment case and the police moved swiftly to file a charge-sheet. Metropolitan magistrate, without going into the merits, hastily issued summons for his appearance in court. In 2011, this poor fellow appealed to a higher court wherein it was established that he was not even present at the place where he was purported to have committed the crime.
Upholding his appeal, the learned Judge observed ‘…provisions of Section 498a are not a law to take revenge, seek recovery of dowry items or to force a divorce but a penal provision to punish the wrongdoers. The victims (women) are often misguided into exaggerating the facts by adding those persons as accused who are unconnected with the harassment under a mistaken belief that by doing so a strong case can be made….In any matrimonial dispute it is the primary duty of every court to ensure for any fault of husband, his relatives including married sisters and brothers who may be living jointly or separately and aged parents are not involved either out of vengeance or to curl out an appropriate settlement’’. The Judge further added “I am compelled to observe that the provisions in the recent years have become consummate embodiment of gross human rights violation, extortion and corruption and even the Apex Court of our country had acknowledged this abuse and termed it as Legal Terrorism”.
Despite these scathing observations, women continued to exploit legal safeguards to their advantage. A woman could get away with any allegation against her husband or his parents and relatives. Not long ago, a visit to Women’s Police Cell, Jammu, left one wondering how the Munshi or even the lady SHOs dispensed instant ‘justice’ to the complaining women by roughing up their husbands or their relatives in full public glare. Did law give them the authority to do that? Perhaps, Section 498a did empower them to humiliate and detain any one complained against without a hearing. The accused are not even furnished a copy of the complaint on one pretext or the other. Real intent is to retain the option of asking the complainant to amend her complainant to suit to a developing situation. One is aware of a case wherein a frivolous complaint about husband’s mental instability was changed to one of physical abuse of wife when the court asked for a copy of complaint. Situation could get uglier for the husband’s side if the opposite party manages to bribe police- a norm in the department. That done, police are at hand to suggest how and how much to demand of the husband’s side.
In a typical case of unfair protection provided by Sec 498a, a woman, after retrieving all her items from her in-laws, sprang a surprise by asking for gold ornaments not mentioned in her original list of items demanded. Though police realised that the demand was false yet expressed its helplessness and insisted on custody of the husband and his parents to affect the ‘recovery’. Even the judge, hearing the case, appeared convinced of innocence of the accused but locked the other way. Had opposite been the case, the husband would probably have been put behind bars instantly. The system and the society need to realise that human rights of men in this country are as sacrosanct as those of women and they need to act impartially and not only as women apologists.
For many years now, SC has been fully aware that the provisions of IPC 498a are being misused by many women. Time to time, it has issued instructions to Union Law Ministry to amend the act. In 2014, a two Judge Bench comprising Justices C.K. Prasad and P. K. Gosh, put an end to the provision of automatic arrests under this Sec. Till then police needed no warrant to arrest an accused since all offences covered under this Act are cognizable. The Bench also issued directions to the states to instruct police to comply with provisions of Sec 41 of Cr PC, as amended. It was a partial relief from the tyranny unleashed by the provisions of Sec.498a of IPC. However, ambiguity about penal provisions against erring policemen restricted this relief only to paper.
Recently, two Judge Bench of Supreme Court, comprising Justices A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit, acknowledged that there was a growing trend among women, involved in marital discords, to abuse Section 498a of IPC to rope in their husbands’ relatives- including parents, minor children, siblings and grandparents – in criminal cases. The Bench further observed that it was high time such frivolous cases that violated human rights of innocents were checked. The bench could not have enunciated the prevalent misuse of the law any better. That conviction rate of cases registered under this Section is just 15.6% is in itself a testimony to its misuse as it also supports the Justices’ contention.
Curtailing powers of police to arrest, the Bench laid down guidelines to first establish veracity of such plaints before proceeding with arrests. Establishment of Family Welfare Committees, relaxing rules governing grant of bail, exemption from personal appearances and of instant impounding of passports auger well for the society. Inclusion of penal provisions of contempt proceeding against those defaulting these guidelines, be they from police or judiciary, are a welcome relief.
Coincidentally, on the same day as Supreme Court was pronouncing this judgement, Madras High Court cautioned family courts not to treat husbands as ‘armless soldiers’ and not to award maintenance to wives ‘mechanically’. It appears that higher courts are now cognizant of misuse of Sec 498a. May be Union Law Ministry too is sensitised to the simmering discontent against provisions of this law and an amendment to its provisions is brought about.
It is nobody’s case that justice be denied to abused women but then every law, to be just, must be even- handed. Some feeble voices questioning the wisdom of learned Justices were raised but those appeared to be for sake of making those to the print. Women fully realise that today’s ‘victim’ women could soon be on the other side of the fence as sisters/mothers-in-law facing the wrong end of the legal stick. Women can’t have the cake and eat that too.
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Follow our WhatsApp channel