Abstract
While marriage is generally considered to be a bond which binds 2 people for a lifetime, it is a bitter truth that some marriages fail. Unfortunately, due to the stigma associated with divorce in society, many women choose to be silent bearers of dowry demands, harassment, violence and outright abuse in their marriages with the hope that they can compromise and fix things in fear of tarnishing their reputation in the society, until it reaches an intolerable limit. An amendment to the Indian Penal Code was inserted in the year 1982 in order to protect women from cruelty at the hands of their husbands and his relatives, with the aim of serving as a saving grace for women in such unfortunate situations. The purpose of this research paper is to examine the uses as well as misuses of the provision in order to understand the current legal scenario and if the controversial amendment has been effective. The findings of the paper revealed that while the intent of the section was to protect women it was observed that in numerous cases, it was being used as a tool by women to take revenge against their husbands. The paper uses secondary data and lies on qualitative research for reaching conclusions. Research concluded that while it is true that the provision is being misused, the fault of a few women cannot be used as a precedent to deny all women justice in a country where abuse against women is prevalent and some suggestions were highlighted in order to ensure justice while preventing malicious prosecution.
Keywords
Marriage, cruelty, amendment, misuse, malicious prosecution, Indian Penal Code
Introduction
India has always been a nation where customs and rituals are not only followed but regarded as sacred and praised[1]. Marriage universally is considered as an important social institution but it is valued more so in a country like India where family is considered to be the essence of society. An ideal life according to society in India is to build a life for yourself professionally, get married and procreate in order to continue your legacy. The essential belief is that a person has only one partner for life (there are some variations according to different cultures, for ex. a major religion in India, Hinduism believes that matrimony is a bond for seven lifetimes instead of one) and it is only with their spouses that a person can establish sexual relations. As a direct result of this, concepts that go against this belief such as divorce, live-in relationships, remaining childless after marriage etc. are generally not accepted in the society and even ostracised in some places. Marriage is a culturally recognized union between people that establishes rights and obligations between them, as well as between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws[2].
Due to the importance that India in general places on marriage one would expect the resultant marriages to be happy ones, but that is not the case. Cases of domestic abuse, cruelty in marriage, demands for dowry and dowry deaths are rampant in the country. It was also observed that the inherent patriarchy in the marital system could cause women to be ashamed or afraid of being blamed themselves, which is why the distinction between actual domestic violence and dowry cases compared to the ones actually reported is huge, the latter being significantly less. Dowry deaths, also covered specifically under section 304B are unfortunately common occurrences in spite of dowry being prohibited through The Dowry Prohibition Act in 1961. It was in the year 1980 that cases of death of women due to dowry demands from husband and his relatives were on the rise, especially in states such as Uttar Pradesh. The government recognized that there was a need to take the matter seriously, and enacted a legislation in order to protect married woman from abuse at the hands of their husbands or his kin. Hence, section 498A was enacted in 1983.
Research Methodology
The research methodology conducted has been primarily doctrinal. This research is based on secondary data sources. All legal provisions are verified with original sources cited. The flow of research included comprehending the provision of section 498A under Indian Penal Code and how the provision is being used in real life. Inferences were drawn only after thorough research which drastically reduces chances of error. The research is qualitative and focuses on how 498A is of value to society but misused with examples provided wherever relevant.
Review of Literature
It has been observed that in order to combat rampant cruelty against married women at the hands of their husbands, section 498A was inserted into IPC vide an amendment. The need was felt for various purposes where it was observed that cruelty was inflicted on women due to denying dowry demands, giving birth to a girl child, husband’s infidelity, meddling in-laws etc. but it was observed after implementing the provision there have been various incidents of misuse of the provision observed which comprised of married women not only bringing in the husband, but also roping in his entire family into legal trouble with hopes of quick cash grabs through out of court settlements or simple sadistic pleasure in making her husband suffer.
Due to the controversy surrounding the issue extensive research has been done on how the provision is being misused by women to the extent that amendment was made on the process of conviction after an FIR under section 498 A is filed which has substantially reduced the deterrent effect the original amendment intended to make. It was observed that there is a significant lack of research on how the changes made after the Rajesh Sharma case effect actual victims of abuse and reduce their chances of getting justice. The topic has been explored to some extent in this research paper but there is ample scope for future researchers to conduct further studies and aim to derive solutions, if need felt.
Use of Section 498A
It is a fact that dowry is still prevalent in many domestic households, and 9 out of 10 of the cases area unit continually involving gift, whereby the girl is unendingly vulnerable for wish of more cash and property that if remains unrealised, the better half is tortured, threatened, abused- physically and verbally and troubled[3].As complaints of domestic violence are very often accompanied with dowry demands this amendment into IPC was made in order to help women undergoing marital disputes and cruelty over dowry as 304B (dowry death) can only be available if the woman dies. This section was inserted in penal code by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983) and by same Act section 113A was introduced under the Indian Evidence Act to raise presumption regarding abetment of suicide by married woman[4]. Domestic violence is recognized as an offence in IPC only through section 498A. The only essentials to availing relief under the section are that the woman must be married, subjected to cruelty in her marriage and that this cruelty shall be done at the hands of the husband or/and his kin. An offence under this section is cognizable, non bailable and non-compoundable which in sequence means that the offender mentioned in the complaint can be arrested without warrant, bail cannot be awarded easily as it is a privilege which can be granted solely through court and the complaint cannot be withdrawn. The punishment for the section entails that an offender shall be punished with imprisonment up to 3 years alongside fine.
Through the explanation for section 498A, cruelty has been defined in wide terms so as to include inflicting physical and/or mental harm to the body or health of the woman and indulging in acts of harassment with a view to coerce her or her relations to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security[5]. In narrower terms it can be said that if the husband or his kin force the women or torment her for dowry and subject her to torture or harassment for non-fulfilment of this demand, ill-treat her in terms of physical harm such as violence or mental harm such as repeated taunts and comments, level allegations on her or seize property legally belonging to her, neglect her in terms of the husband’s duty of providing for his wife or conduct any act which might abet the women tom end her life, it can be constituted as cruelty by husband or in laws.There have also been judicial precedents on what actually constitutes cruelty with State of Karnataka v H.S Srinivasa[6] ruling that if a woman suspects that continuing to be married and reside with her husband causes danger to her physical or mental well-being due to her husband’s actions amount to cruelty, the case of Basant Kaur v State (NCT) Delhi[7] stated that suspicions of cruelty arise if a woman commits suicide or dies under mysterious circumstances within 7 years of her marriage; however mere suicide by wife does not make a husband guilty under section 498A as there should be proof that there was cruelty and the suicide committed is a direct result of that cruelty as per R,P Bidlan v State of Maharashtra[8].
Lawfully wedded women can file an FIR alleging 498A against her husband if any of these grounds are met and the husband if convicted under section 498A will be liable to imprisonment which can extend for a period of 3 years alongside fine. The complaint regarding offences under 498A must be filed within the time period of 3 years from the time the alleged last incident of cruelty took place[9].
Abuse of Section 498A
Being married has a lifelong effect on how content people are[10], and when observing that many of these marriages lead to unhappiness and misery, particularly for the woman involved, 498A was enacted with an aim to provide an immediate relief to the women and punish the husband alongside his family members as Indian families are largely joint and in many instances the family members either ignore the woman’s suffering and neglect her or actively participate in her harassment. The government believed that such a strict act was a necessity but the cases filed under this section soon highlighted that this was a mistake, as some women used the legal remedy in order to take revenge or settle scores from their estranged husband and his family members by maliciously filing 498A cases against them due to marital disputes without any legitimate grounds of cruelty. Preeti Gupta v State of Jharkhand[11] led Supreme Court to also hold that a large number of complaints under this section reflect exaggerated versions of incidents[12].
What was meant to be used as a shield to protect them was often being used as a weapon by women[13]. Women unhappy in their marriage for whatsoever reason would sometimes file the cases in order get a huge amount of money for settlement outside court, blackmail the husband and his family for getting them to do what she wants, to take revenge for something the husband has done or simply for tormenting the husband. There have also been cases where the wife had committed adultery and then charged the husband with 498A as a way to end the marriage and then get together with her lover. Cases such as Savitra Devi v Ramesh Chandra[14]the court held clearly that there was a misuse and exploitation of the provisions to such an extent that it was hitting at the foundation of marriage itself and proved to be not so good for health of society at large[15].
It was seen that women filing a case against their husbands often had a tendency to rope in the family members of the husband into the case as mothers and sisters of the husbands implicated were rapidly arrested with quarter of all arrests under this section being females. There have been various cases terming the section as unconstitutional and asking for its removal. As visible in the landmark case of Rajesh Sharma v State of Uttar Pradesh[16], it was recognized that in many cases of disputes between the husband and his wife, the wife while filing complaint under 498A against the husband, the validity of which might or might not stand, also implicates his immediate family such as father, mother, sister into the case in order to settle her personal grudges. In order to remedy this unwanted effect, the supreme court in the above case held that allegations made by the wife against her husband’s relatives should not be taken at face value, only the husbands and his immediate parents can be held liable for dowry demands, alongside the courts directed to set up a unit known as “family welfare committee” in every single district tasked with looking into the complaints filed under 498A to the police or the magistrate, form a report of the matter deciding whether or not the complaint is legitimate within a period of one month. No arrest can be made in the case until and unless the report is received. The judgement provides that the committee may consist of para-legal volunteers/social workers/retired persons/wives of working officers/other citizens who may be found suitable and willing[17]. Through this extensive process in order to get the accused in the case behind bars, the court aimed to reduce the number of false cases and innocent families suffering alongside seeing that actual cases of cruelty against women get justice.
Dilemma
The actual position on false cases filed under this section poses a dilemma. It is a matter of fact that just because a segment of people from a particular section of society, usually the well-educated individuals aware of their rights choose to file false 498A cases for personal gains does not mean that every single 498A case is false. The NFHS-4 indicates that in India, 22 women have been killed in dowry-related murders every day. Around 31% of married women have witnessed physical, sexual or emotional abuse from their partners[18]. These very real statistics are proof that gender inequality, domestic violence and harassment for dowry are very real phenomenon’s that exist and affect many women throughout, assuming that because of a few bad apples that every single woman is lying about abuse is wrong and gives abusers a chance to escape.
The amendment into 498A which asks for family committees to be set up which will review the case before arrest is problematic as it might lead to injustice against women already suffering. While the supreme court believes that the committee will make the right decision in every single case under the section, from a practical point this seems unrealistic as there is a 1-month period from lodging the complaint to submission of the report which gives the accused enough time to tamper with the evidence or flee in order to escape arrest. Additionally, like it has been witnessed time and again, many people in the government are corrupt, this might lead to acquittal of powerful men who might buy out these officials and get them to make a doctored report, thus leading to women not getting the justice they deserve.
Suggestions
There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts[19]. The judiciary needs to be more effective and efficient in order to ensure that 498A cases are dealt with in such a way that while no innocent is punished, a guilty man should not be allowed to roam free. Here are a few suggestions in order to improve 498A-
- States should set up family counselling centres where marital disputes could be settled instead of going to court. Both the parties could reach a conclusion between them through such an arrangement and can settle the matter without unnecessary legal aspects being involved.
- There should be a time-bound investigation and trail into matters of 498A which is beneficial for everyone as it ensures that no person is falsely punished but also gives justice to real victims.
- Arrest of only the husband shall be cognizable, his family members who are mostly his mother and father should not be arrested without at least some evidence that cruelty has been committed.
- A way to reduce false accusations would be to establish punishment for the women in case it is found that the 498A complaint filed by her did not have any actual grounds was done maliciously in order to torment her husband.
The provision laid down under section 498A IPC, 1860 should be amended keeping in mind the above factors and it should be one of the major concerns of the law-makers in recent times[20].
Conclusion
While marriages in India are still considered to be sacred, it is unfortunate that marital disputes, usually resulting in harassment or torture against the wife are on the rise. Even after being prohibited years ago dowry is still one of the major causes for which women and their kin are tormented. Realising the gravity of the situation and the fact that women need to be protected against violence, the government inserted section 498A into the IPC in 1983 in order to protect women from cruelty by their husband and his relatives. However, it has been noticed that some women misuse this law for various reasons wherein they file false 498A cases against their husbands and thus put him and his family members behind bars without any actual evidence of cruelty. This led to the Supreme Court to dilute the strictness of the provision and set up a committee which will review whether or not the complaint filed has any actual grounds before the arrest would be made. While this decision was praised by many, it is to be noted that women still are in a vulnerable position as compared to men in India, which is why they still need the help of the said provision to fight the battle of abuse against them. Although there is a tendency of the victim to rope in as many relatives as she can, the issue has to be dealt with by providing a comprehensive definition for the term ‘relative’ and not by diluting the provision itself[21]. 498A still remains an extremely controversial topic with hopes that future amendments will make the law more gender neutral and ensure that no innocent is punished and no guilty is let off.
_________________________________________________________________
- Gourav Kumar, A Study On Misuse Of Section 498a Of Indian Penal Code, 1860, 2 International Journal Of Law Management & Humanities, (2019).
- Shyam Prakash Pandey, “Changing Dimensions of Institutions of Marriage in India: A Socio-Legal Evaluation” 4 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities 58-72 (2021).
- Hashika and M. Kannappan, “A Critical Study on Misuse of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860” International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics 1143 (2018).
- Komal. R. Vyas and Dr. Mukesh Prajapati, “A Study of the Happiness Among the People with Reference to Their Marital Status and Gender” 9 The International Journal of Indian Psychology (2021).
- Khushi Agrawal, “Rajesh Sharma and Ors. V. State of up – Wrongly Feeds into the Narrative of 498A Being Misused?” The Criminal Law Blog (2020).
- Suman Yadav, “Misuse of Section 498a of Indian Penal Code: How Blessing Became Curse for Society” 3 International Journal of Legal Developments and Allied Issues 94 (2017).
Akansha Pant,
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, NMIMS, Mumbai
[1]Gourav Kumar, A Study on Misuse of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, 2 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, (2019).
[2]Shyam Prakash Pandey, “Changing Dimensions of Institutions of Marriage in India: A Socio-Legal Evaluation” 4 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities 58-72 (2021).
[3]A. Hashika and M. Kannappan, “A Critical Study on Misuse of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860” International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics 1143 (2018).
[4]Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (LexisNexis, 36th edn., 2020).
[5]Varsha, “498A Use and Misuse” B&B Associates LLP (2019).
[6]State of Karnataka v. H.S. Srinivasa Iyengar, 1996 (2) ALT Cri 12.
[7]Smt. Basant Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2003 CriLJ 803.
[8]R,P Bidlan v. State of Maharastra, 2003 CriLJ 803.
[9]Supra no. 5
[10]Komal. R. Vyas and Dr. Mukesh Prajapati, “A Study of the Happiness Among the People with Reference to Their Marital Status and Gender” 9 The International Journal of Indian Psychology (2021).
[11]Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667.
[12]Supra no. 6
[13]Supra no.4
[14]Savitra Devi v. Ramesh Chandra, 2003 CriLJ 2759,.
[15]Supra no.4
[16]Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2017 SCC 821.
[17]Khushi Agrawal, “Rajesh Sharma and Ors. V. State of up – Wrongly Feeds into the Narrative of 498A Being Misused?” The Criminal Law Blog (2020).
[18] Supra no.18
[19]Suman Yadav, “Misuse of Section 498a of Indian Penal Code: How Blessing Became Curse for Society” 3 International Journal of Legal Developments and Allied Issues 94 (2017).
[20] Supra no. 1
[21] Supra no. 18