By Dr Swati Jindal Garg
Theodore Roosevelt once said: “No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it.” The glaring question before us today, however, is if the same rules will apply to a woman as well?
In the light of the recent events, characterized by the suicide committed by 34-year-old techie Bengaluru techie Atul Subhash and the allegations levied by him against his wife and in-laws, the Supreme Court has come down heavily on the “growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code” intended to protect married women “as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife”.
The statement was made by a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh, wherein the judges also remarked: “The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife.”
Justice Nagarathna further noted that “making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm-twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family”.
The observations were made by the judges while hearing a plea filed by a man, his parents and three sisters-in-law against a Telangana High Court order that rejected their prayer to quash the charges against them. The apex court quashed the FIR filed under Section 498A and certain provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the man, his parents and his three sisters saying: “A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No 2 (wife of the man) are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that ‘her husband harassed her and that the others instigated him to do so’, she has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.”
Elaborating further, the bench also stated: “Given the facts of this case and in view of the timing and context of the FIR, we find that the wife ‘left the matrimonial house on 03.10.2021 after quarrelling with’ her husband ‘with respect to her interactions with a third person in their marriage. Later she came back to her matrimonial house assuring to have a cordial relationship’… However, she again left the matrimonial house. When the husband ‘issued a legal notice seeking divorce on 13.12.2021, the present FIR came to be lodged on 01.02.2022 by’ the wife. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the FIR filed by the wife ‘is not a genuine complaint, rather it is a retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with her husband and his family members’.”
Passing observations on the conduct of the wife qua her children, the Court further remarked that “it is noteworthy that the woman ‘has not only deserted’ her husband ‘but has also abandoned her two children as well, who are now in the care and custody of’ the husband. Clarifying that the husband’s parents and his sisters “have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason” as a perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against them other than stating that they used to instigate the husband “for demanding more dowry”, the Court allowed the petition filed by the husband saying: “A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement, should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.”
Noting that the petitioner’s kin who were named in the FIR “have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house…hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them,” the Court added.
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has time and again been used as the last resort—and sometimes the first—by women who want to get an upper hand in matrimonial disputes and their resolution. The Section deals with the criminal offence of cruelty against a married woman by her husband or his relatives and was introduced way back in 1983 and has now been replaced by Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which deals with the same offence. Under this provision, the offender can face up to three years in jail and may also be liable to pay a fine. The offence is much feared as it is both cognizable and non-bailable, which means that immediate custody of the accused is possible and this is perhaps the reason that both the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and Section 498A are sometimes misused by filing false complaints to harass husbands and their families.
These provisions are not only exploited as tools for personal vendetta, but are also used to gain leverage in matrimonial disputes, including property settlements, maintenance claims, and/or custody battles. The threat of immediate arrest looms large over the husband and his family, including his married sister, giving the wife an upper hand in coercing him for financial settlements. In several instances, false cases are used to coerce husbands and their relatives into making large financial settlements or paying alimony. The fear of arrest or prolonged legal battles often compels him to concede to unreasonable demands which are, most of the times even beyond his capacity.
Section 498A is a non-bailable and cognizable offence, leading to immediate arrests without the need for warrants or prior investigation. However, looking into its misuse, of late, directions were passed by the apex court that no person be arrested under a complaint filed u/s 498A without at least making a preliminary investigation. This provision has often been exploited to pressurize the accused husband, resulting in wrongful detentions and damaging reputations before guilt is even established.
There is no denying the fact that the stigma associated with dowry allegations can cause irreparable harm to the social standing, mental health and professional life of the accused and his family, as even if acquitted, the accused may suffer long-term consequences due to the negative perception attached to the charges. The latest example of such allegations and their result is the suicide committed by Atul Subhash. Even though the intent behind legislating Section 498A was good, experience shows that “over legislation is not necessarily a virtue as it often leads to misuse of law”.
There is a dire need to establish clear distinctions between bailable and non-cognizable offenses within the law as thorough investigations should be conducted prior to making any arrests in order to root out any frivolous and motivated complaints. The principle of proportionality should be applied when arresting family members, and considering the extent of harm, the wife and members of her family should be held accountable for lodging false and misleading complaints by imposing strict penalties.
Till the time these penalties are imposed, there will be nothing that stops a person from making false allegations and indulging in years of litigation in order to get a better ‘deal’ for themselves in a matrimonial negotiation.
The first step in the direction may be taken by ensuring that the country implements gender-just laws (recognising domestic violence against men as well) that promote equality and protect the rights of every individual, regardless of gender. Establishing legal frameworks that tackle discrimination, violence and economic disparities is vital for creating an inclusive society, and hence, there is an immediate need to establish clear distinctions between bailable and non-cognizable offenses within the law.
It is said that “liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power.” The laws that were made for emancipation of women have time and again been used as weapons of destruction. Care must be taken to ensure that equality of women does not come at the cost of men.
—The author is an Advocate-on-Record practising in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi