Abstract
This research paper provides an overview of the historical context of Section 498A, analyses the reasons behind its enactment, and discusses its intended purpose. It further explores the various instances of misuse and false implications of this provision, leading to the unjust harassment of innocent individuals. The paper also examines the social, legal, and psychological implications of the misuse of Section 498A and suggests potential measures to address the problem. The research is based on an analysis of existing literature, case studies, and legal precedent.
Men start treating women as a slave and if the women fail to bring money or any expensive thing they were beaten by the husbands or relatives of the husband. The unexpected rise in cases of the harassment made by the husband or relatives of the husband, forced the government to introduced provisions related to this, section 498A came into the picture under this.
Sometimes when any kind of privilege is given to someone they start misusing it, the same happened with the provision sec 498 A of IPC, women started harassing their husband by filing false complaint under the provision of cruelty. They even start blackmailing their husband or his relatives for the money. when the husband fails to fulfils her demands they filed a false against him and in some of the cases the husbands attempts suicide because of shame.
KEYWORDS
Section 498A , cruelty, harassment , dowry, domestic violence, IPC
INTRODUCTION
In India , there are different religions , under all religions the special place is given to women and history is the proof that women are the one who can handles all the situations. The married women were addressed as a ‘Dharma Patni’ which means who preserves the culture and beliefs and rightful conduct of life. The main role of the dharma patni is to support the family , religious activities and its beliefs.
But in past years they were treated as a slave by their husbands and they were harassed by their husbands , they did not allow them to go anywhere and when they fails to bring dowry form their maternal housme. , they were beaten by the husbands or relatives of her husband . sometimes the pregnant women haves to face cruelty. , there are many cases under which the women is pregnant and still faced cruelty and harassment.
The section 498A of IPC protects the women who is facing cruelty or harassment. This helps the women to strengthen them as they got power to speak against the wrongful act done by their husbands.
After the provision introduced by the government, women start using it for their personal benefit, they start harassing their husbands and blackmails them for the property or money or if they want something to do by them. Its very difficult to prove that they are innocent, sometimes after all this they attempt suicide because of the fear of the society that what will they think.
This research paper’s main motive is to research in depth that how many cases are in India related to this, or how can we prevent the misuse of this section, what actions government can take or should introduced provisions that help to prevent this problem.
SECTION 498 A of Indian Penal Code:
Section 498 A defines that husband or relatives of the husband of a woman does any act that amounts to cruelty , harassment or mental torture , shall be subject to a fine as well as a sentence of imprisonment that may last up to three years.
The definition of cruelty is also provided in this section.
Cruelty is defined as any intentional act that could cause serious harm to a woman’s life, limb, or health or be likely to motivate her to commit suicide. This act could be of a mental or physical nature..
Meaning of relatives defined under the below mentioned case:
V. Seevetha v. state by Inspector of Police[1], that in the absence of any statutory definition of the term “relatives” of husband, the term relative is clearly understood and not much needed to interpret this word.
Meaning of Cruelty:
In the case Kaliyaperumal v. state of Tamil Nadu[2], the meaning of cruelty is explained.
Infractions under both Sections 304-B and 498A of the IPC commonly include cruelty. The two provisions do not overlap, but both are separate offences, and a person found not guilty under one of them is declared free under the other.
A person who has been found not guilty under Section 304-B for the crime of dowry death may nonetheless be found guilty under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code because those two sections of the IPC are separate offences and do not overlap. In an explanation of section 498-A of the IPC, cruelty is defined. The definition of cruelty and harassment established in section 498-A is also applicable to section 304-B, despite the fact that section 304-B does not contain its definition.
By itself, cruelty is a crime under Indian Penal Code Section 498-A, whereas dowry death is a crime under Section 304-B, and the death must have happened within seven years of marriage. However, Section 498-A does not refer to such a time period.
In Virender Bhatt v. State[3], it was held that. When the deceased wife committed suicide within seven years of their marriage and there was convincing evidence that the accused husband had cruelly treated the deceased wife, it was presumed that the accused had helped his wife commit suicide, making the conviction for violations of Sections 306 and 498-A proper.
In Ramesh Chand v. State of U.P.[4] that a complaint under section 498-A could succeed only when proved that there was an “unlawful demand” by the husband of some money. Mere demand without settlement of dowry at the time of marriage is no offence. Mere refusal by the father-in-law to meet the demand does not make the demand unlawful unless the said demand can come within the definition of dowry.
The Dowry Prohibition Act:
Dowry practice was evolved during the Vedic period, this practice was mostly performed by the families that belongs to the upper caste . upper caste families are more likely to engage in the dowry system than lower caste families. This system is followed to benefit the women who are not able to inherit the property. Dowry does not refer to the gifts that are voluntarily given by the bride’s parents to the family of the bridegroom.
Dowry system is an illegal practice that were followed by the gitl’s parents at the time of the marriage. In general , the items such as movable property, gold or cash given to the family of bridegroom .
But if the bride or bride’s family fails to give or fails to fulfil any demand made by the bridegroom then bride subjected to cruelty , harassment , or mental torture by the husband or relatives of the husband.
According to Article 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, gifts provided to the bridegroom when no demand has been made for them are exempt from the punishment for giving or receiving dowry.
In Inder Raj Malik v. Mrs. Sumit Malik[5], The court determined in this instance that this section violates Articles 14 and 20(2) of the Indian Constitution. The government passed the Dowry Prohibition Act, which also addresses situations of abuse, cruelty, and mental torture committed by husbands and their families. The two legislation together are known as double jeopardy since they deal with these issues. However, the Delhi High Court rejected this argument, ruling that this clause does not give rise to a circumstance where a person could face double jeopardy.
Because only the demand for dowry is punished under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the presence of a cruelty element is not required, Section 498A of the IPC deals with the aggravated form of the offence. It penalises those requests for valuable security or property from the wife or her family members that are accompanied by abuse towards her. Therefore, a person may be charged with crimes under both Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and this section.
In the case of Siddalinga v. State of Karnataka[6], the bride committed suicide due to harassment and alleged dowry demand and cruelty meted out to deceased by the accused/appellant husband who was having illicit relationship with another woman. This was the sole cause of suicide. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly maintained the conviction of the accused under Sections 498A/306 of IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two and five years respectively. There was no ground for reduction of sentence, therefore, appeal accordingly deserved to be dismissed.
MISUSE OF SECTION 498A
The purpose of making frivolously false accusations against their husbands in order to obtain money or just torment the family is a violation of this clause by women. The torture in this portion is getting worse chop-chop, so the women typically catch their husbands.
With the intention of defending women from cruelty, harassment, and other offences, Section 498A was created and added to the penal code by legislators. However, the number of acquittals compared to convictions was higher when cross-investigations were conducted to test the efficacy of these legislation. As a result, the Supreme Court, which enacted 498A believing it to be a safeguard against cruelty to women, now views it as legal terrorism. Since abuse of Section 498A damages its genuine integrity.
It is called an anti-male law for a number of reasons, including that. There are numerous complaints, and the judiciary has even acknowledged widespread usage, but there is no accurate information based on empirical research regarding the scope of the alleged misuse.
Under the case Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand,[7] The Honourable Court clearly prohibits misuse including the manipulation of laws to the extent that it was totally impacted by the effect of marriage itself and was thereafter deemed to be unwise for the welfare of the huge community. The court was of the opinion that officials and legislators needed to research the case and the relevant laws in order to prevent it from happening in the future.
The Supreme Court ruled in Baijnath & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh[8] that the mere fact of an unnatural death occurring in the residence of the marriage partner within seven years of the union is insufficient evidence to condemn the accused under Section 304-B/498-A. Only when the prosecution can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the deceased was harassed or treated cruelly in connection with a dowry demand. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 may have been applied shortly before her passing.
The deceased was killed by strangulation in the case of Bibi Parwana Khatoon & others v. State of Bihar,[9] and the body was then set ablaze. The tragedy happened in the deceased’s marriage-related residence. Circumstantial evidence failed to prove that the appellant’s (accused) sister, brother, or any other family member shared the accused’s criminal intent. There was proof that neither of them resided with the accused husband, but rather in a different village. As a result, the High Court overturned their conviction and cleared them of Section 304-B/34 accusations, but upheld the husband’s conviction and sentence.
The Hon’ble Court outlined the following methods to prevent the misuse of this Section in the case of Chandra Bhan v. State[10]:
- FIR shouldn’t be consistently reported as such; police should carefully examine complaints before registering FIR;
- No case should be filed under section 498-A/406 IPC without the DCP’s or Addl. DCP’s prior approval;
- The complainant’s stridhan and dowry items should be returned to him or her in the first instance after all reasonable attempts at reconciliation have been made and if it is determined that there is no chance of settlement;
- Only after a thorough investigation and with the ACP’s or DCP’s prior agreement can the key accused be arrested.
In Preeti Gupta & ANR v. State of Jharkhand[11]case ,
Manisha, the plaintiff, wed Kamal Poddar in the year 2006. She accused her husband and his family members of physically abusing her and demanding money in 2007. Following that, a complaint was made under Section 498A and other IPC provisions.
Preeti Gupta, the married sister-in-law, and her husband have filed an appeal in opposition to the contested decision made by the High Court of Jharkhand.
The Court observed that it is customary to hold the husband and all members of his immediate circle of relatives accountable. Even when the criminal case is over, it would not always be easy to ascertain the real truth. Therefore, while handling marriage-related concerns, the courts should be very attentive and diligent when dealing with these complaints and take into account real-world circumstances.
The charges of harassment in this instance would have a completely different tone if the complainant’s close relatives had lived in different places and never visited or hardly ever visited the complainant’s home. It is necessary to carefully and cautiously examine the complaint’s assertions. Consequently, the court instructed to quash in the interest of justice.
Ways to Save themselves From Section 498 A:
The innocent spouse and his family must suffer as a result of legal gaps that exist somewhere. There is no need to panic because every problem has a solution. Some protection is provided from the wife’s misuse of section 498 A of the IPC against the husband and his family members.
- Apply for Anticipatory Bail: If the person feels or fears that he might be arrested after the wife files a FIR under section 498 A, he should hire a reputable criminal attorney and apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for the necessary guidance. Anticipatory bail functions similarly to painkillers. The individual may submit an anticipatory bail under section 438 of criminal procedure code.
- Quashing of FIR: If a false FIR is filed under section 498 A against the husband and a member of his family, he has the right to petition the High Court to have the FIR dismissed in accordance with section 482 of the CrPC. The court accepted your testimony as adequate evidence that you were not guilty, and as the court has the inherent authority to issue orders, stop abuse of the legal system, and do other things to ensure the completion of justice, it did so.
- Restitution of Conjugal Right: When the woman leaves her marriage house and previously resided with her father’s family, under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the party who has been harmed may file petition in the local court for the restoration of conjugal rights.
- Apply for Defamation: If a person in society has a good reputation, is well-known, and their spouse attempts to harm their reputation and believes that doing so will cause harm, the husband has the right to sue the wife for defamation after the wife filed a fictitious case under section 498 A of the IPC.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research article discusses the misusing of section 498 A of Indian Penal Code by the women to harass their husbands or relatives of the husband. This research programs provide the in depth knowledge of the section 498A , why this section is introduced or what are the benefits provided to whom and to what extent .the all answers are clearly given under the research.r3
The main aim of this research is to find out whether there is a misuse of section 498 A or if it is then to what extent or is there any need to look out the cases where the provision of misuse is done by the women. Or what are the safeguards that someone can take who is facing this
For the research of this topic or section 498A I refer some articles , blogs from different sites and some books also and I took the help from my professor who guided me.
After collecting all the data , from articles , blogs and books , I wrote this research paper by applying my own knowledge by reading it .
I interpret and by applying my own knowledge concluding this topic and give suggestions related to this topic and I discussed this topic with my colleagues also and by gathering all the material I completed my research work.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This topic is co related with the Dowry Prohibition Act, two provisions of different laws are related to each other. Firstly section 498 A of Indian Penal Code introduced to protect the women from harassment, cruelty or mental torture done by their husbands or relatives of the husband.
After reading articles and some of the judgements that to some extent women are filing false cases or allegations to harass them for money or any valuable thing . I read certain reports and surveys related to this, this practice mainly done by the women who married in rich families, so that they can demand the huge amount of money, some of the women blackmails their husband for the property also, and to protect the family’s reputation he has to transfer the property.
METHOD
For the research of the topic “misuse of section 498 A, I took certain methods such as:
- Read articles, blogs and some research paper also.
- Refer books of Indian Penal Code
- Read reports and took the help of the some of the surveys
- Some of the material is collected from the judgements and case laws.
SUGGESTIONS
The misuse of provision section 498 A is can be controlled by the court or legislature by making amendments in this particular section or in general term by making improvement, so the loopholes under this section can be covered.
Numerous incidents of men being abused by their spouses or in-laws have come to light in various parts of the world. Because there is now no organisation that can significantly ease the burden on these overworked individuals and their families to listen to their side of the story and prioritise reading over government policy, making family substance abuse facilities available nationwide to help resentful families is the current goal.
If a court decides that the accusations made in relation to the commission of the act under the provisions of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code are incorrect, serious measures needs to be taken towards the offender. If people know about it, they won’t show up in court with filthy hands and secret intentions. All authorities should be charged with crimes if they aid in the false accusations of girls and their families.
CONCLUSION
The woman made a false accusation in accordance with the terms of provisions of Section 498A IPC and established her husband as a result, proving that Section 498A abuse does not remain a rumour. The boys have no legal safeguards against being abused by women. Additionally, section 498A of the IPC was abused in every district court case. Even if the lawsuits were still pending, husbands were still required to pay their wives maintenance because, while being the husband, he is not necessarily responsible for all costs and benefits. Compared to men in society, scammers are more likely to be women. The wives use this area as a tool to force their husbands to pay them money.
The reality that women abuse the 498A section of the IPC against their husbands and in law. The infraction still remains even though the commission of inquiry has urged against declaring it. The misuse of the regulations does not mean that they are no longer functional or damage the greater public interest.
INDERPREET KAUR
CHANDIGARH UNIVERSITY
[1] . V. Seevetha v. state by Inspector of Police,2009 3 Cr LJ 2974 (Del.)
[2] Kaliyaperumal v. state of Tamil Nadu, 2003 Cr LJ 4321 (SC)
[3] Virender Bhatt v. State,1989 Cr LJ (N.O.C.)196 (Delhi)
[4] Ramesh Chand v. State of U.P., 1992 Cr LJ 1444 (All).
[5] Inder Raj Malik v. Mrs. Sumit Malik, 1986 Cr LJ 1510 (Del.)
[6] Siddalinga v. State of Karnataka, 2019 (5) SCJ 698
[7] Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand,2 003 Cr LJ 2759, 104 (2003) DLT 824,
[8] Baijnath & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh,1966 AIR 220, 1966 SCR (1) 210
[9] Bibi Parwana Khatoon & others v. State of Bihar, (2017) 6 SCC 792
[10] Chandra Bhan v. State, AIR 1954 All 39
[11] Preeti Gupta & ANR v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SC 667