Government plans amendments in dowry harassment law to prevent misuse of its provisions
Sunday, 17 May 2015 - 2:45pm IST | Place: New Delhi | Agency: PTI
With an average 10,000 false dowry harassment cases being registered every year, government plans to amend the criminal law to prevent frequent misuse of its legal provisions.
Under the proposal, Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code will be made a compoundable offence with the permission of the courts as suggested by the Law Commission and Justice Malimath Committee.
Provisions will be kept to allow compromise and settlement between husband and wife at the onset of trial in dowry harassment cases, a Home Ministry official said. The offence at present is non-compoundable and non- bailable, which provides for immediate arrest of the accused.
Conciliatory efforts between the hostile parties are virtually impossible. A husband or his family members are presumed guilty till they prove their innocence in court. The offence is punishable with a jail term of up to three years.
There have been allegations that husbands and in-laws are often charged with false dowry harassment when some marital problems arise.
As per data provided by the National Crime Records Bureau, a total number of 99,135, 1,06,527 and 1,18,866 cases, respectively, were registered in 2011, 2012 and 2013 in the country under Section 498A for cruelty by husband or his relatives.
After police investigation, 10,193 in 2011, 10,235 in 2012 and 10,864 cases in 2013 were found to be false or suffering from mistake of fact or law. If the offence is made compoundable, misuse of the law may come down hugely as there would be scope for initiating conciliation proceedings and out -of-court settlement.
Permission from a court will be a guarantee against attempts where a wife may be compelled into a compromise by her husband or in-laws, the Home Ministry official said.
Under the existing rules, if a dowry harassment case is proved wrong or it is proved that the law was misused, a penalty of only Rs 1,000 is imposed. The amendment, however, provides for a Rs 15,000 fine.
Another new section is expected to be inserted to allow an accused to escape jail by paying a penalty.
The Supreme Court had in a 2010 judgement said that, as it stood now, the law had become a "weapon in the hands of disgruntled women". It had also observed that a serious re-look of the entire provision is warranted by the legislature.
"It is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. "The tendency of over-implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases," the apex court had said.
Section 498A was introduced in the early 80s to protect married women from being subjected to cruelty by the husband or his relatives. A spate of dowry deaths in Delhi and elsewhere led to a campaign by some leading women members of Parliament, prompting the government to bring the amendment.
The expression 'cruelty' has been defined in wide terms so as to include infliction of physical 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 valuables.
The Law Commission recommended that the offence under Section 498A should be made a compoundable offence with the permission of court. Justice Malimath Committee on Criminal Justice Reform, too, recommended that it be made compoundable as well as bailable.
The Home Ministry has also asked all state governments to be judicious in slapping Section 498A in matrimonial disputes as the provision may be used as "weapons rather than shields by disgruntled wives".
Genuine compromise can make ipc 498a compoundable but Can’t nix rape case even after compromise: SC | Isnt it genuinely promoting extortion ?
Dhananjay Mahapatra,TNN | Jul 29, 2014, 12.16 AM IST
NEW DELHI: Dowry harassment cases are personal in nature and can be quashed if the estranged couple reach a "genuine" compromise, the Supreme Court has ruled.
A bench of Justice Ranjana Desai and N V Ramana drew a contrast between offences under Section 498A IPC and heinous crimes like rape and murder, though all three categories of offences are non-compoundable.
It said Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code provided the list of offences that could be compounded after parties reached a compromise and the courts have to strictly follow that.
Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Desai said, "It is, therefore, not possible to permit compounding of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, if there is a genuine compromise between husband and wife, criminal complaints arising out of matrimonial discord can be quashed, even if the offences alleged therein are non-compoundable, because such offences are personal in nature and do not have repercussion on society, unlike heinous offences like murder, rape etc."
The judgment came in a case related to a complaint under Section 498A and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by a woman against her husband and parents-in-law. Though the Madhya Pradesh high court acquitted the parents-in-law, it upheld the conviction of the husband. However, the HC reduced the sentence of the husband to six months imprisonment from two years sentence imposed by the trial court.
In the apex court, the estranged couple reached a compromise with the husband agreeing to pay Rs 2.5 lakh in addition to bearing the cost of litigation. The woman pleaded for quashing of the case against her estranged husband. The standing counsel for Madhya Pradesh opposed quashing the case.
The bench examined whether the apex court could reduce the sentence in a case where the conviction has been upheld by the trial court and the high court. The court found that though Section 498A of IPC did not prescribe a minimum sentence, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act provided a minimum six-month sentence.
The court was in a dilemma even after coming to the conclusion that appellate courts could reduce sentence to the period already undergone despite the minimum sentence provided for. The dilemma arose because the husband had been in jail for just seven days.
The bench rejected the state's objection to the compromise and said, "We see no reason why in this case we should not reduce the husband's sentence to the sentence already undergone by him. There can be no doubt about the genuine nature of the compromise between the husband and wife." It recorded the compromise and relieved the husband of further imprisonment.
Govt mulls amendments to anti-dowry law to add clause for misuse of ipc 498a
As on PTI | Jul 27, 2014, 10.26 AM IST
NEW DELHI: Keeping in view the rising number of complaints regarding the misuse of anti-dowry law, Centre is mulling to introduce penal provisions in the act that will ensure punishment or penalty to those who make false charges.
The Union ministry of women and child development is also contemplating giving more teeth to the Dowry Prohibition Act by strengthening the existing provisions and widening the definition of 'dowry'.
"Recently, a rise in the incidents of misuse of the anti-dowry law has come to the notice of the ministry. In some cases, women falsely implicate their husbands and in-laws for various other reasons.
"If the allegations turn out to be false, the case gets closed. So there are discussions going on about changing some provisions under which the misuse of the act may invite punishment or penalty," an official in the ministry said.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had directed the state governments to instruct police "not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498A of IPC (dowry harassment) is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down flowing from Section 41 of Criminal Procedure Code".
While giving the direction, the apex court had expressed concern over the misuse of the anti-dowry law by "disgruntled" wives against her husband and in-laws and noted that the act was being increasingly used to harass in-laws.
According to ministry officials, the amendments may include widening the definition of 'dowry' by changing the words 'in connection with marriage' to 'given before the marriage, at the time of marriage and at any time after the marriage'.
The officials said that there was also "a proposal to link certain provisions of the Domestic Violence Act to the Dowry Prohibition Act to provide quick relief".
Notifying the list of gifts exchanged during the wedding may also be made a mandatory and failure to do so could invite heavy penalties including a three-year jail term not only to the bride and the groom but also to their parents.
"Notification of the gifts during the wedding will help in checking any claim from being made later that they were part of dowry," the officials said.
In addition to this, a new clause may be incorporated which will provide an aggrieved woman the opportunity to file her case either at the place where the offence was committed or where she permanently or temporarily resides, they said.
The National Commission for Women (NCW) had also proposed recommendations to amend the Dowry Prohibition Act in 2009.
Misuse of Dowry and Domestic Violence Act is a Human Rights Issue
By Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj, on IBNLive Specials Jul 09, 2014 at 03:05pm IST
Media suddenly seems to have woken up from slumber in last four-five days on the misuse of section 498A. Every news channel is debating recent judgment by the Supreme Court (SC) - restricting immediate arrests of husband and family members under 498A. I also happened to be on one such debate, last week. Though the judgment is quite comprehensive detailing reasons for such move, anchor of the show I was on, was keen on punching holes in the judgment and showed absolute apathy to the issue.
As soon as I got out of the studio, I got a call. It was Sonia. I thought she was calling me after watching me on television but I was wrong. Moment I said hello, she started crying uncontrollably. "She has beaten my mother in law, my daughter and me. My daughter's thumb is fractured. She is threatening to kill my daughter. Please help me," she pleaded. I asked her to calm down and tell me what has happened. She explained that there was no male member at home and Nisha (name changed) - younger daughter in law of the family along with her sister had beaten everyone up!
Let me tell you who Sonia is - She is the elder daughter in law of the family, married for 23 years and a "498A accused." She, her husband, old mother in law, husband's brother( Nisha's husband), married sisters in law, their husbands- almost everyone including her teenage daughter have been accused of demanding dowry by Nisha who has herself been married for 19 years! Reason - Nisha wants property in which joint family is staying in her name! After listening to the entire incident, while I asked Sonia to calm down and register an FIR, I myself wished only one thing- make Sonia talk to anchor of the show I was in and let him hear pain of people abused by 498A. Sonia's case is peculiar for two reasons - one, she is herself a daughter of another family, so why would she demand dowry from Nisha and second - after 19 years? But - logic/common sense is least a part of 498A.
Media suddenly seems to have woken up from slumber in last four-five days on the misuse of section 498A.
Sonia and her family aren't alone. There are endless stories of abuse and gross misuse of 498A.
IPC 498A - commonly known as the Anti Dowry law, was passed in 1983 to protect married women from mental and physical cruelty and dowry related demand by husband and his relatives. 30 years on, 498A today is commonly known as the law which is 'Misused.'
For beginners - 498A is not a case between husband and wife. It's a case between husband and state where state fights on wife's behalf. 498A can be filed anytime after marriage - even after 22 years. Since it also considers mental harassment any number of relatives can be named and summoned - even if they have never lived with you, are in different cities or abroad - citing harassment over phone or any incident when they visited India. Married sisters are prime target, dragging even her in laws into the case to exert pressure. There are instances where even friends have been summoned. 498A can be filed from anywhere though it's a criminal offence. So, if you are from Kerala and wife from Punjab, she can file a case from Punjab and your family travels thousand miles on every date. When 498A is filed, every wedding expense is presented as dowry by the girl side. So even if you did not demand anything from the girl, you can become a dowry case accused. There is no time limit to trial of these cases. Some 498A cases have been pending in Delhi courts since 1991. Even if your divorce comes through, your 498A can linger on for years in court.
Now, why do I say Misuse of this law is a Human Rights Issue?
The basis of any criminal Jurisprudence around the world is - "innocent until proven guilty" and in words of English Jurist William Blackstone "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." This law overturns both these principles. As soon as a woman makes a statement that so and so person demanded dowry from her, that person is treated as a criminal and tried as a criminal. In dowry cases, onus of proof that dowry was not demanded is on the accused. Since the law is cognizable and non-bailable, police has a free hand in arresting anyone who it deems fit as per the written complaint by the woman without 'any' investigation. I say without any investigation because the FIR and charge sheet in most of these cases is a replica of each other. Rarely have I seen evidences from husband's side being considered or presented. So statement of a woman is enough to throw a common man or woman behind bars.
I have been researching on this issue for last two years while working on a documentary on the same. As per National Crime Records Bureau, from 1998 to 2012 - after rounding off, a total of 10 Lac cases have been filed and 21 lac people have been arrested of which 5 Lac are women, 1 Lac are senior citizens and shockingly 10,000 are minor boys and girls. In the same period, 4,48,704 cases completed trial and a mere 89,452 resulted into conviction and rest whopping 3,59,252 resulted into acquittal! These numbers are extraordinary. I understand an acquittal doesn't necessarily means a false case but I also understand that an acquittal definitely means the case did not stand scrutiny under the court of law. 498A wasn't made as an alternative for quick divorce or dispute redressal or tool for getting back at husband for revenge - it was a law made to punish the wrongdoers! Courts aren't blind to look at the actual stories behind these cases and thus the enormous acquittals.
Many people tell me, every law is prone to misuse. I have a basic question - under which law does a person gets punished or termed criminal just because of being someone's relative? Under which law does police arrest you just because your name appears in an FIR? Which cruelty exactly can be committed sitting 1000/2000 Kms away? Under which law do you become an accused without any investigation whatsoever and stand in the court for years to prove your innocence? Under which law a 90 year old grandmother who can barely walk is dragged from Delhi to Dehradoon just because a 25 year old woman alleged that the old woman demanded money? Under which law whatever the complainant is saying is taken at its face value without AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE and cases run for years on mere allegations? In my knowledge, none!
Nowhere in the world, are you and your family labelled criminals because of a failed marriage. But in India, the moment a marriage breaks, this label comes automatically in guise of a 'dowry' case. To make things clear, you can get a 498A by your wife if you - refuse to leave your old parents on her demand; incur huge financial losses and can't afford her luxurious lifestyle; object to her extra marital affair; have a bad equation with her parents, ask for separation citing incompatibility. Even if you have filed for Divorce on grounds of cruelty by her, she can still go ahead and file 498A claiming you are the actual abuser! It doesn't matter if you are thrashed, abused, beaten up every day and have plethora of evidences of her cruelty, her statement that you demanded dowry will outweigh everything. I am not throwing clichés. These are cases I have seen with eyes wide open including one where a man was thrown into Jail for conducting DNA test on his son, before even the reports came out. No prize for guessing - he isn't the father of the child!
NCRB statistics related to 498A can never tell the real story of abuse of this law. Behind every FIR there are hundreds of cases that get 'settled' because of fear of arrest, harassment for years and humiliation. There is no data as to how many Mutual Consent Divorces are a result of such threats! Lacs are being demanded in exchange of a 498A or 498A settlement. Pay before or after, you make a choice. Everyone including lawyers, police and the girl makes great money in this racket which is approximately a 2000 crore business every year (approximate figure including bails, kickbacks and settlement amounts). Negotiations can be heard at every level in these 'family dispute' cases - be it at women cells, police stations, mediation cells or courts. If you decide to 'not pay' and fight back, you are in courts for years with not just one case but a package including Domestic Violence Act, Criminal breach of trust and a horde of maintenance cases. Irony is - after fighting for years for honour, all that a man gets is acquittal. Filing a case of defamation or punishing the woman for her wrong is almost impossible as first courts don't entertain these cases and if they do - you are in courts for another couple of years!
Isn't it funny that a woman who is accusing in-laws of demanding dowry herself then demands 10-15-20-50 lacs for settling the cases? Isn't it funny that cruelty or humiliation she has gone through is bartered for money? I know of an old woman who runs a tea shop being asked 25 Lacs to settle dowry case on her son. Her son's mistake- he doesn't earn much. I wonder if anyone can define this practice as anything but legal terrorism/blackmail /extortion.
How have we become a society where rights of a young wife are more important than rights of a 90 year old woman or that of an old father and mother who have slogged for years bringing their son up or that of a teenage sister who could be ostracized for being in Jail for rest of her life or that of a married sister whose marriage might collapse because of her husband and in laws being dragged? How have we become a society where to get one woman justice we are doing injustice to so many people? How are we legally allowing these blackmails to happen where a man is snatched of years of his savings just because marriage of his son did not work? How can we jeopardize existence of a man, just because his marriage 'failed'?
People argue with me over dowry deaths. I wish I had a law which recognized reverse dowry deaths where a person committed suicide because of a false dowry case or threats of a false case! There are thousands who have committed suicide leaving testimony of innocence through suicide notes. Syed Ahmed Makhdoom, Aarti, Lokesh Singh, Manoj Kumar, Prashant Pandey, Ravi Parmar, Anuj Gupta, Anoop Sharma, Niramala Devi, Ravi Parmar, Mahendra Singh, Harkamaljeet and his wife -are few examples. Strangely, a law that was meant to protect women from committing suicide has become a reason for suicide for many.
Tagging someone criminal for no crime, punishing someone for no wrong, claiming someone's job, career and peace for no reason, harassing an entire family for a failed marriage, leaving no option to a man to come out of an abusive marriage, slapping him with a dowry/domestic violence case if he files for divorce - If this is not a human rights issue, I wonder what is!
I welcome SC judgment wholeheartedly but I am doubtful of its impact. CrPC amendments that have been stressed upon in the judgment have been on papers since a long time. However, the rut of 498A is so deep, that these judgments have rarely brought a change. I think it's high time that the government intervenes and amend the law with a misuse clause to punish anyone who misuses it for personal gains. If women organizations opposing this landmark decision really want to get Justice for women, get a time limit on trial of these cases and ask for booking wrong doers whether man or woman. Punish the guilty and spare the innocent. Justice to one cannot come at cost of Injustice to others!
(Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj is a journalist and a documentary filmmaker. She is currently documenting misuse of section 498A of IPC through her documentary film 'Martyrs of Marriage.' She can be reached at martyrsofmarriage@gmail.com)
The Court found that Nisha Sharma's allegations were false as she wanted to avoid getting married to Manish Dalal
Rebel bride’s dowry charge junked
Aniruddha Ghosal, TNNMar 1, 2012, 03.21AM IST
GREATER NOIDA: She hit the headlines nine years ago after calling off
her wedding in front of 200 guests, alleging the groom's family had
demanded a massive dowry at the last minute. But on Wednesday, all the
fame and media adulation Nisha Sharma cornered in 2003 seemed misplaced
when a court here declared she had fabricated the dowry charges to
wriggle out of the nuptials.
Calling Sharma's action
pre-meditated, the chief judicial magistrate at Gautam Budh Nagar
district courts, Vipin Rai, acquitted all the four accused in the case -
the groom Munish Dalal, his mother Vidya Dalal, his aunt Savitri
Sharma, and Nisha's former classmate Navneet Rai.
The court noted that there was "insufficient evidence to prove that
the demand of Rs 12 lakh had been made by the Dalal family a night
before the wedding". The witness introduced by Sharma's counsel was "not
related" to the family and had died during the course of investigation,
opening up room for "benefit of doubt for the accused", the CJM said.
TOI has a copy of the order.
After examining the evidence
produced in court, the CJM ruled that Sharma was close to her classmate
Navneet Rai and wished to marry him. Her family had discussed the
alliance with Rai's family but it did not work out. Sharma's father then
betrothed her to Dalal. The order says Sharma was unhappy with the
match and had set her heart on marrying Navneet, so she cooked up the
dowry story.
During investigation, Rai himself had testified
against Sharma. Munish Dalal had claimed at the time that Navneet met
and told him about his relationship with the woman.
On Wednesday,
Sharma couldn't be contacted and her father DD Sharma refused to
comment without seeing a copy of the order. "I haven't seen a copy of
the court's decision and I simply can't comment upon the matter until I
have seen it. Nisha still doesn't know about the order and I am not
going to be the one who tells her. Let the court's order come tomorrow
and then we will see. But if what the media is saying is true, we will
definitely be appealing against the decision," he said.
A
relieved Munish Dalal said the court had vindicated his position. "Nine
years of my life were ruined and there is nothing that can make up for
it and the amount of suffering that my family and I faced as a result of
this. I was a government employee and just a month shy of completing my
probation, but after these allegations my whole life and career were
ruined."
Nisha Sharma and Munish Dalal would have tied the knot
on May 11, 2003. But the wedding was called off when Sharma alleged the
Dalals had demanded Rs 12 lakh cash and a car in dowry. She called the
police and a case was registered against Munish, his mother and his
aunt.
The Gautam Budh Nagar district court on Wednesday acquitted all the accused in the infamous Nisha Sharma dowry case for the lack of concrete evidence against them.
In 2003, the girl from Noida in the national capital region (NCR)
shot into the limelight as she turned back her marriage party refusing
to tie the knot because she claimed that her to be in-laws had asked for
dowry.
The police arrested Nisha's to be husband Manish Dalal and his family members for dowry harassment.
However, the Gautam Budh Nagar district court acquitted all the
accused saying there were not enough evidence to prove the charge.
The court also dismissed another case filed by Nisha against Navneet
Rai, who had claimed that he was already married to the girl when the
Dalals turned up at her residence for the marriage.
Though it came as a huge relief for the Dalal family, it was a big
embarrassment for Nisha and her family members. Nisha had been hailed as
a heroine in the fight against dowry after she turned back the marriage
party.
Now, questions are also being asked about whether anti-dowry laws are
biased against men and their families. The Sharmas are now planning to
challenge the lower court order in a higher court.
Talking to Headlines Today, Nisha's father D.D. Sharma on Thursday
insisted that the accused family was just let off because of lack of
evidence against them and the court had not acquitted them restoring
their pride.
On the other side, accused Manish said he and his family members
suffered a lot because of the false allegations levelled against them.
He said the court order came as a big relief to them.
-- Nine Years Later, All Accused Acquitted In Nisha Sharma Dowry Case
Noida, Mar 1: Nine years after he was arrested for
demanding dowry, a local court on Wednesday acquitted Munish Dalal, his
mother and aunt in the Nisha Sharma case for lack of evidence.
The
case hit the headlines in 2003 when Nisha Sharma refused to marry Dalal
at the eleventh hour alleging that the bridegroom's family had demanded
dowry. Nisha Sharma was then hailed for her courage.
Nisha's father DD Sharma had alleged the groom's parents had demanded additional dowry.
Following this, Munish Dalal, his mother and aunt Savitri Sharma were arrested. They were released on bail a few months later.
Chief
judicial magistrate Vipin Sharma on Wednesday acquitted them due to
"lack of strong evidence". Nisha Sharma's advocate said they will
challenge the order in a higher court.
Dalal's family had all along maintained that Nisha called off the wedding because she wanted to marry one Navneet Rai.
Rai
had also claimed that he married Nisha at a temple and had produced
some documents. Nisha had instead lodged a cheating case against Rai.
The court also acquitted Rai.
"Citing lack of strong evidence,
the CJM gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and ordered their
acquittal. The prosecution also could not prove the documents produced
by Rai were fake," said SN Verma, senior prosecution officer.
Nisha
Sharma, a resident of Sector 56, Noida, overnight became an anti-dowry
icon after she called off her wedding at the last minute. In November
2003, she married a resident of Modi Nagar.
After his acquittal,
Munish Dalal said, "I have suffered a lot in these nine years. But as
the judge read the acquittal lines, the first thing that came to my mind
was that truth has won."
He said the 60 days he was in jail was the "most horrible period" of his life.
His mother Vidya Dalal said, "The court has pulled us out of hell and I thank God for that."
Nisha Sharma dowry case: Court acquits all accused
The Gautam Budh Nagar district court on Wednesday acquitted Munish Dalal and his family members in the 2003 Nisha Sharma dowry case.
Nisha had made national headlines when, on her wedding day, she
refused to marry Munish alleging that his family members had made a
dowry demand the previous night.
The court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Vipin Rai, while
dismissing the charges against the four accused, observed that Nisha’s
decision to call off her wedding was pre-planned.
In May 2003, Munish, his mother Vidya Dalal and aunt Savitri
Sharma were booked in a police case after Nisha alleged that the family
demanded Rs 12 lakh as dowry. The court in its order said there was
“insufficient evidence to prove that the demand... had been made by the
Dalal family a night before the wedding”.
The court also acquitted Nisha’s classmate Navneet Rai, who was
also booked on the charge of giving false documents against Nisha.
The court ruled that Nisha was close to Navneet Rai and had
wished to marry him instead of Munish. Nisha’s family had also
approached Navneet for the marriage but when the proposal did not work,
her marriage was fixed with Munish. Nisha who was not happy with her
marriage then levelled false allegations of dowry demand.
Chiranjeevi's daughter Srija files dowry harassment case. Yet another case of misuse of 498a . Evidently Meenakshi Lekhi, a feminist lawyer promotes its abuse and misuse as she views it as OVERUSE OF 498a
16 march 11
The issues and dispute are different and do not fall in the ambit of 498a but still these allegations are allowed and given color of dowry harassment to get the matter settled at the unlawfull terms of wife by systematic extortion and blackmailing of husband and his relatives who are hapeless remedyless and are victimised on mere false allegations of the wife.
NOW HERE IS A CLASSIC CASE WHERE BLATANT AND FLAGRANT MISUSE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS ALLOWED TO SETTLE PERSONAL PROBELEMS/SCORES AND VENDETTA
This case clearly depicts how after LOVE MARRIAGE that was done against the girl’s parents wishes is ruined with interference of girl’s parents who ultimately convince,tutor and pressurise their daughters to get divorce from the SON-IN-LAW they were always opposed to.
And it also exemplifies how mindlessly such girls MISUSE AND ABUSE DOWRY HARASSMENT LAWS to get out of a marriage at their own terms.
HYDERABAD: Police adopted a cautious approach in handling the dowry harassment complaint filed by Chiranjeevi's daughter Srija against her husband and in-laws.
Police said that they were in the process of gathering evidence to substantiate the complaint lodged by Srija.
In her written complaint, Srija alleged that her husband Sirish Bharadwaj along with her mother-in-law Suryamangala had been physically and mentally harassing her for the last few months for money to set up business.
According to police, Srija, in her complaint, said that as the harassment continued, she feared that Sirish might force her to sell away properties registered in her name. "Due to suspicion, she re-registered the properties on her family members name," a Central Crime Station (CCS) official said.
The 22-year-old housewife also alleged that she had sent several e-mails and SMSes to her family members and friends about the harassment. "Srija put up with the torture for a long time, but left for her parents' house a few days ago when Sirish physically assaulted her in an inebriated state," an investigating officer said.
On Tuesday, CCS police asked Srija to submit supporting evidence like property papers, email and SMS details.
According to sources, Sirish was in police custody and his parents were also in touch with them. But they would show his arrest after getting substantial evidence from Srija.
Earlier in the day, DCP DD J Satyanarayana told media personnel that cases were registred against Sirish and his mother under Sections 498-A (Subjecting a married woman to cruelty) and 3 & 4 of the Dowry (Prohibition) Act of IPC.
A woman and her family members cannot be treated as accused under the Dowry Prohibition Act for giving dowry at the time of marriage, the Supreme Court has said. A bench of Justices HS Bedi and CK Prasad upheld the Delhi High Court verdict that quashed a criminal case against a girl stating a dowry harassment victim was protected under the law and, could not be charged under the Act.
Two separate benches of the Delhi HC had taken divergent views on the issue. While Justice SN Dhingra (since retd) held the woman and her family could be prosecuted for giving dowry, Justice Ajit Bharihoke had said it could not be done.
The latter judgment held that section 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act provided protection to the person who was a complainant under the law. Section 3 of the Act makes giving, accepting or abetting dowry an offence.
The SC order clarifies the legal position regarding the culpability of an alleged dowry-giver bride. It dismissed the appeal against Justice Bharihoke’s verdict filed by the husband who claimed that the judge could not have delivered it as the law was settled by Justice Dhingra.
The bench, however, dismissed the petition and said, “The girl is a victim and you want her to be prosecuted also. Then 498A (dowry harassment section) would be rendered nugatory.”
Vijary Aggarwal counsel for the woman who faced the case for giving dowry, contended there should be harmonious construction of the Act.
Justice Bharihoke had in October 2010 quashed a metropolitan magistrate’s order that directed registration of a case under the Act against a woman. The case was registered following a complaint made before the court by the husband.
--------
Full text of SC order
ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.7 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).1339-1340/2011 (From the judgement and order dated 20/10/2010 in WP No. 501/2010 & CRLMA No. 3921/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI) SAMEER SAXENA Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned Judgment) Date: 07/03/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARJIT SINGH BEDI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gagan Preet Singh, Adv. Mr. Karan Bir singh, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Rajnish Kumar singh, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Adv. Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. We see no reason to interfere in the Special Leave Petitions which are, accordingly, dismissed.
Govt mulls over to make ipc 498a Bailable, Non-cognizable, compoundable. 498a amendments under consideration.
The Debate on News24 channel on 5th March 2011
Part 1/2
Part 2/2
more details at
http://www.legallyindia.com/1839-section-498a-of-ipc-its-use-misuse
Sec-498 A I.P.C. – Its Use And Misuse
Introduction:
To start with first we have to look that what this word marriage means. ‘Marriage is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.’ It is a social institution where husband has the responsibility to take care and maintain his wife. He cannot neglect his duties. But on this great institution a stigma called ‘dowry’ still exists. Women are ill-treated, harassed, killed, divorced for the simple reason that they didn’t brought dowry.
For safeguarding the interest of woman against the interest of woman against the cruelty they face behind the four walls of their matrimonial home, the Indian Penal Code,1860(herein after referred to as I.P.C.) was amended in 1983 and inserted S.498A which deals with ‘Matrimonial Cruelty’ to a woman.
Matrimonial Cruelty in India is a cognizable, non bailable and non compoundable offence. It is defined in Chapter XXA of I.P.C. under Sec. 498A as:
Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects her to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to a fine.
Explanation – for the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means:
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demands for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.[1]
The section was enacted to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It was introduced in the code by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983). By the same Act section 113-A has been added to the Indian Evidence Act to raise presumption regarding abetment of suicide by married woman. The main objective of section 498-A of I.P.C is to protect a woman who is being harassed by her husband or relatives of husband.
Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act[2], reads as follows:
Sec. 113-A, Presumption as to dowry death- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation- For the purpose of this section ‘dowry death’ shall have the same meaning as in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
The object for which section 498A IPC was introduced is amply reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons while enacting Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act No. 46 of 1983. As clearly stated therein the increase in number of dowry deaths is a matter of serious concern. The extent of the evil has been commented upon by the Joint Committee of the Houses to examine the work of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In some of cases, cruelty of the husband and the relatives of the husband which culminate in suicide by or murder of the helpless woman concerned, which constitute only a small fraction involving such cruelty. Therefore, it was proposed to amend IPC, the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (in short ‘the Cr.P.C’) and the Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of dowry deaths but also cases of cruelty to married women by the husband, in- law’s and relatives. The avowed object is to combat the menace of dowry death and cruelty[3].
The act of harassment would amount to cruelty for the purpose of this section. Drinking and late coming habits of the husband coupled with beating and demanding dowry have been taken to amount to cruelty within the meaning of this section, but this section has been held not to include a husband who merely drinks as a matter of routine and comes home late[4]. In a case before Supreme Court it was observed that this section has given a new dimension to the concept of cruelty for the purposes of matrimonial remedies and that the type of conduct described here would be relevant for proving cruelty.
Meaning of Cruelty:
It was held in ‘Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu[5]’, that cruelty is a common essential in offences under both the sections 304B and 498A of IPC. The two sections are not mutually inclusive but both are distinct offences and persons acquitted under section 304B for the offence of dowry death can be convicted for an offence under sec.498A of IPC. The meaning of cruelty is given in explanation to section 498A. Section 304B does not contain its meaning but the meaning of cruelty or harassment as given in section 498-A applies in section 304-B as well. Under section 498-A of IPC cruelty by itself amounts to an offence whereas under section 304-B the offence is of dowry death and the death must have occurred during the course of seven years of marriage. But no such period is mentioned in section 498-A.
In the case of ‘Inder Raj Malik vs. Sunita Malik[6]’ , it was held that the word ‘cruelty’ is defined in the explanation which inter alia says that harassment of a woman with a view to coerce her or any related persons to meet any unlawful demand for any property or any valuable security is cruelty.
Kinds of cruelty covered under this section includes following:
(a) Cruelty by vexatious litigation
(b) Cruelty by deprivation and wasteful habits
(c) Cruelty by persistent demand
(d) Cruelty by extra-marital relations
(e) Harassment for non-dowry demand
(f) Cruelty by non-acceptance of baby girl
(g) Cruelty by false attacks on chastity
(h) Taking away children
The presumption of cruelty within the meaning of section 113-A, Evidence Act,1872 also arose making the husband guilty of abetment of suicide within the meaning of section 306 where the husband had illicit relationship with another woman and used to beat his wife making it a persistent cruelty within the meaning of Explanation (a) of section 498-A.
Constitution Validity of Section 498-A
In ‘Inder Raj Malik and others vs. Mrs. Sumita Malik[7]’, it was contended that this section is ultra vires Article 14 and Article 20 (2) of the Constitution. There is the Dowry Prohibition Act which also deals with similar types of cases; therefore, both statutes together create a situation commonly known as double jeopardy. But Delhi High Court negatives this contention and held that this section does not create situation for double jeopardy. Section 498-A is distinguishable from section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act because in the latter mere demand of dowry is punishable and existence of element of cruelty is not necessary, whereas section 498-A deals with aggravated form of the offence. It punishes such demands of property or valuable security from the wife or her relatives as are coupled with cruelty to her. Hence a person can be prosecuted in respect of both the offences punishable under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and this section.
This section gives wide discretion to the courts in the matters of interpretation of the words occurring in the laws and also in matters of awarding punishment. This provision is not ultra vires. It does not confer arbitrary powers on courts.
In the leading case of ‘Wazir Chand vs. State of Haryana[8]’, involving the death by burning of a newly married woman, the circumstances did not establish either murder or an abetted suicide and thus in-laws escaped the jaws of section 300 and 306, but they were caught in the web of this newly enacted section for prevention of harassment for dowry. Not to speak of the things they are persistently demanding from the girl’s side, the fact that a large number of articles were taken by her father after her death from her matrimonial abode showed that there was pressure being exerted on-in laws and continued to be exerted till death for more money and articles.
With the rise in modernisation, education, financial security and the new found independence the radical feminist has made 498A a weapon in her hands. Many a hapless husbands and in laws have become victims of their vengeful daughter-in-laws. Most cases where Sec 498A is invoked turn out to be false (as repeatedly accepted by High Courts and Supreme Court in India) as they are mere blackmail attempts by the wife (or her close relatives) when faced with a strained marriage. In most cases 498A complaint is followed by the demand of huge amount of money (extortion) to settle the case out of the court.
Sec 498A and the Allegation of Misuse:
In the last 20 years of criminal law reform a common argument made against laws relating to violence against women in India has been that women misuse these laws. The police, civil society, politicians and even judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court have offered these arguments of the "misuse' of laws vehemently. The allegation of misuse is made particularly against Sec 498A of the IPC and against the offence of dowry death in Sec 304B. One such view was expressed by former Justice K T Thomas in his article titled 'Women and the Law', which appeared in The Hindu.21 The 2003 Malimath Committee report on reforms in the criminal justice system also notes, significantly, that there is a "general complaint" that Sec 498A of the IPC is subject to gross misuse; it uses this as justification to suggest an amendment to the provision, but provides no data to indicate how frequently the section is being misused. It is important therefore that such "arguments" are responded to, so as to put forth a clearer picture of the present factual status of the effect of several criminal laws enacted to protect women.
Domestic violence and abuse by spouses and family members are complex behaviours and the social organisation of courts, the police and legal cultures systematically tend to devalue domestic violence cases. Sec 498A was introduced in the IPC in 1983 and the reforms of the past 20 years have not been adequately evaluated at all by the government with respect to their deterrence goals, despite the institutionalization of law and policy to criminalise domestic violence. A program of research and development is urgently required to advance the current state of knowledge on the effects of legal sanctions on domestic violence. The narrow or perhaps almost negligible study done by law enforcement agencies about the deterrent effects of legal sanctions for domestic violence stands in high contrast with the extensive efforts of activists, victim advocates and criminal justice practitioners in mobilising law and shaping policy to stop domestic violence. It is important to do these studies to correct the general misconceptions that women are misusing the law by filing false cases against their husbands and in-laws in order to harass them and get them convicted. The perspective of the state and its agencies needs to change from that of protecting the husbands and in-laws against potential "misuse" of the laws of domestic violence to that of implementing their real purpose – to recognise that such violence is a crime and protect women who have the courage to file complaints against their abusers.
Article 15 of Indian Constitution
Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. However, it allows special provisions for women and children. Article 21A provides for free and compulsory education to all children from the ages of six to 14 years. Article 24 prohibits employment of children below 14 years in mines, factories or any other hazardous employment. The court also took note of Article 14 guaranteeing equality, and Article 21 providing that a person cannot be deprived of life and liberty except according to procedure established by the law. Similarly, Article 23 prohibiting human trafficking and forced labour was also referred to in the court’s judgment.
Moving away from fundamental rights to the directive principles, the court pressed into service provisions relating to the health of women and children. Article 39(f) directs the State to ensure that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and moral and material abandonment. Article 42 directs the State to make provisions for just and humane conditions of work, and maternity beliefs. Article 45 stipulates that the State shall provide early childhood care and education for all children until the age of six. Article 47 lays down the raising of level of nutrition and standard of living of people, and improvement of public health as a primary duty of the State.
This section tries to maintain that every married woman needs to be given due respect and treated with care. It reinforces the fact that a woman is not a toy to be played with, to be thrown away at one’s whims and fancies and treated as inferior to any other. It inherently asks for husbands to treat their wives well and not misbehave or demand unjustly which in a way sends forth a message that a woman is a commodity for sale.
What section 498A IPC tries to do is prevent and punish the above act and re-assert a woman’s
right to live a peaceful and happy life.
Use of Section 498 A by Indian Courts:
Indian Courts had been using this provision to safeguard the women from facing the cruelty faced by them at their matrimonial home.
9 out of 10 of the cases are always related to dowry, wherein the woman is continuously threatened for want of more money and property which if remains unfulfilled , the married woman is tortured, threatened, abused- both physically and verbally and harassed. Like in the case of Ram Kishan Jain&Ors v State of Madhya Pradesh[9]due to insufficiency of dowry demands the woman was administered calmpose tablets and thereafter she even cut the arteries of both her hands. Sometimes, dowry may not be the cause but the woman for several reasons like her complexion or family status is tortured to death.
In the case of Surajmal Banthia & Anr. v. State of West Bengal[10], the deceased was ill-treated and tortured for several days and even not given food several times. Her father- in-law also misbehaved with her quite often. This is the treatment that several young brides face when they move out of their parents’ home and into the house of her in-laws’. It is the duty of the court to prevent any of these abusers from escaping. The increasing rate of bride burning for want of more dowry and brutal torture of young wives, together with a clear escape of the abuser is a clear indication that the court has not taken any strong measures for the implementation of S. 498A IPC properly.
As stated earlier many a times this victim turns into the abuser and is clearly not wronged but
instead wrongs the husband and his family for no fault of theirs. Several cases show that the married woman takes advantage of the section and sends the respondents to jail under the ambit of this section.
Many women rights’ groups justify the abuse of this section as being a common feature with all
other laws and that also the ratio of false cases to that of true ones as being very low. But this still does not change the truth that there is slowly a rise in the abuse of S.498A IPC.
In many judgments, the court has not considered mental cruelty caused to the woman but has
concentrated only on any sign of physical cruelty. If evidence does not show that the woman was
physically harassed, then the court does not look into the case. What the court does is call the
woman hyper- sensitive[11] or of low tolerance level and having an unstable mind[12].
Also S.498A IPC does not only deal with dowry deaths but also any willful conduct on part of the husband which causes harm to the wife’s ‘ life, limb or health (whether mental or physical).’To prove that cruelty was caused under Explanation a) of S.498A IPC it is not important to show or put forth that the woman was beaten up- abusing her verbally, denying her conjugal rights or even not speaking to her properly[13] would fall into the ambit of mental cruelty.
Showing any mercy to abusers or giving them the ‘benefit of doubt’ when some proof to torture at their hands is present is completely wrong. Like in the case of Ashok Batra & Ors v State[14]even though letters of the deceased stating that harassment had taken place was present, not treating them as strong evidence and giving the appellants a benefit of doubt without ordering for a further investigation into the matter is wrong.
The judges have in several instances made a very narrow interpretation of this section, considering it to be only cruelty in relation to unlawful demands or dowry demands. In a particular case, the court went to the extent of stating that ‘merely because her in-laws or husband were to chastise the woman for improper or immoral conduct, it does not necessarily amount to cruelty.[15]’ This act of chastising the woman clearly amounts to mental cruelty, something that the court apparently failed to notice. Here, considering the woman to be a hyper- sensitive woman not used to usual wear and tear of social life is completely erroneous.
In the case of Bomma Ilaiah v State of AP[16]the husband of the complainant tortured the woman
physically by forcing his wife to have sexual intercourse with him. He inserted his fingers and a stick in her vagina, causing severe pains and bleeding but the court found the husband of this
Woman guilty only under S. 325 IPC and not S, 498A IPC. Why? Her life both physically and
Mentally was at risk. Didn’t the court notice this?
The court has in another case not punished the guilty under S.498A IPC even though medical
Reports clearly showed that the death was homicidal by throttling. This was simply because
According to the court, even though there were dowry demands in the past, the court felt that
Proximity of the death to be caused due to such a demand was unlikely[17]. Who decides this
Proximity? The cause and its effect on the woman’s health or life may be profound and even cause her mental unrest at a later stage.
While on the on hand, women’s emancipation is the need of the hour and prevention of ever
increasing dowry deaths and harassment needs to be stopped, it is also clearly noticed that women today are still tortured and often the court, being the ultimate savior also does not come to the rescue to protect these women.
Misuse of Section 498 A in Modern World:
A violation of this section, its goals and its aims is on the rise with the woman
frivolously making false allegations against their husbands with the purpose of getting rid of them or simply hurting the family.
The abuse of this section is rapidly increasing and the women often well- educated know that this
section is both cognizable and non-bailable and impromptu works on the complaint of the woman and placing the man behind bars.
Like in the case of Savitri Devi v Ramesh Chand & Ors[18], 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. The court believed that
authorities and lawmakers had to review the situation and legal provisions to prevent such from
taking place.
This section was made keeping in mind protection of the married woman from unscrupulous
husbands but is clearly misused by few women and again this is strictly condemned in Saritha v R. Ramachandran[19]where the court did notice that the reverse trend and asked the law Commissionand Parliament to make the offence a non-cognizable and bailable one. It is been a duty of the courtto condemn wrongdoings and protect the victim but what happens when the victim turns into theabuser? What remedy does the husband have here?
On this ground, the woman gets to divorce her husband and re-marry or even gain money in the
form of compensation.
Many women rights’ groups go against the idea of making the offence a non-cognizable and
bailable one thinking that this gives the accused a chance to escape conviction. But what this would do is that it would give a fair chance to the man and above all help meet the ends of justice. Justice must protect the weaker and ensure that the wronged is given a chance to claim back his/her due.
When women accuse their husbands under S.498A IPC by making the offence non-bailable and
cognizable , if the man is innocent he does not get a chance quickly to get justice and ‘justice
delayed is justice denied’. Therefore, the lawmakers must suggest some way of making this section non-biased to any individual such that the guilty is punished and the person wronged is given justice.
The position of the women in India is still bad. They still need rights to alleviate themselves in
society but many a times fail to notice others’ rights as long as their rights are ensured. The
educated woman of today must agree with the mantra of equality and demand the same but the
trend is slowly getting reversed. Women are taking due advantage of the fact that they are referred to as the ‘weaker sex’ and on the foundation of rights ensured to them are violating others’ rights.
Recent Judgements:
Indian Courts in their recent judgements have looked into the matter of misuse of Sec.-498A I.P.C. As this Section provides that when an F.I.R. is lodged all the family members of the husband can be roped in.In their judicial observations and remarks, the courts have expressed deep anguish over this law. Here are some recent judicial observations.
1990 Punjab and Haryana High court observed in Jasbir Kaur vs. State of Haryana[20], case as:
“It is known that an estranged wife will go to any extent to rope in as many relatives of the husband as possible in a desperate effort to salvage whatever remains of an estranged marriage.”
In Kanaraj vs. State of Punjab[21], the apex court observed as:
“for the fault of the husband the in-laws or other relatives cannot in all cases be held to be involved. The acts attributed to such persons have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and they cannot be held responsible by mere conjectures and implications. The tendency to rope in relatives of the husband as accused has to be curbed”
Karnataka High Court, in the case of State Vs. Srikanth[22], observed as:
“Roping in of the whole of the family including brothers and sisters-in-law has to be depreciated unless there is a specific material against these persons, it is down right on the part of the police to include the whole of the family as accused”
Supreme Court, InMohd. Hoshan vs. State of A.P.[23] case, observed as:
“Whether one spouse has been guilt of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact. The impact of complaints, accusation or taunts on a person amounting to cruelty depends on various factors like the sensitivity of the victim concerned, the social background, the environment, education etc. Further, mental cruelty varies from person to person depending on the intensity of the sensitivity, degree of courage and endurance to withstand such cruelty. Each case has to be decided on its own facts whether mental cruelty is made out”
Supreme Court, in a relatively recent case, Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and others[24], observed as:
“The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contented by the petitioner that many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame work.
But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not an assassin’s weapon. If cry of “wolf” is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual “wolf” appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any pre-conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally undisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.”
Conclusion:
The Court and Legislature have to make changes if the laws of matrimonial cruelty are to be of any deterrence.Looking into the recent observations and the increase in the misuse of this Section, there should be certain amendments which should be brought up in this law:
1. Role of Women NGOs: These organizations should investigate complaint properly without any bias towards the woman keeping in mind that the law is being misused largely to harass more women in husband’s family. They should not encourage any woman to file a criminal case against her in-laws for trivial matters. Foreign Women Organizations should also take responsibility of not allowing false complaint to be registered against NRI’s just to harass and extort huge amount of money from them. These organizations should also conduct survey/research on the misuse of the act and should educate people about its consequences. If these organizations are found to be assisting in filing false complaints, then they should be made liable for prosecution in the country where they are functioning.
2. Family Counselling Centres: Numerous cases of men being harassed by wife or/and in-laws have come to light from different parts of the country. As of now there is no organization, which can really help these harassed men and his family members, to listen their side of the story and put their point of view in front of the government. Need of the hour is to create family counseling centers across the country to help those aggrieved families.
3. Time bound Investigation and Trial: A speedy trial of 498(a) cases will not only ensure justice for the innocents that have been implicated in false charges, it will also lead to prompt redressal of the grievances of real dowry victims .The reduction in false cases will also reduce the burden on judiciary and expedite the processing of real cases.
4. Definition of Mental Cruelty: Mental cruelty has been vaguely defined in the act, which leaves scope of misuse. This should be clearly elaborated to remove loopholes in the law. There should be provision for men also to file a case for mental cruelty by his wife.
5. Investigation by Civil authorities: The investigation into these offences be carried out by civil authorities and only after his/her finding as to the commission of the offence, cognizance should be taken. The government should create awareness among officers about its misuse.
6. Bailable: The main reason of 498a being misused to harass innocent is its non-bailable nature. This section should be made bailable to prevent innocent old parents, pregnant sisters, and school going children from languishing in custody for weeks without any fault of them.
7. Compoundable: Once FIR has been registered it becomes impossible to withdraw the case even if wife realizes that she has done a blunder and wants to come back to her matrimonial home. To save institution of marriage this should be made compoundable. Moreover, in the scenario where the couple decides to end the marriage by mutual divorce, continuation of criminal proceedings hamper their life.
8. Arrest Warrants: Arrest warrant should be issued only against the main accused and only after cognizance has been taken. Husband family members should not be arrested.
9. Penalty for making false accusation: Whenever any court comes to the conclusion that the allegations made regarding commission of offence under section 498a IPC are unfound, stringent action should be taken against persons making the allegations. This would discourage persons from coming to courts with unclean hands and ulterior motives. Criminal charges should be brought against all authorities that are collaborating with falsely accusing women and their parental families.
10. Court Proceedings: Physical appearance of the accused on hearing should be waved or kept low to avoid hassles in appearing to the court, especially for NRIs. The court should not ask to surrender passport of the husband and his family which could cost job of the husband and his family members.
11. Registration of Marriage and Gifts Exchanged: The registration of marriages should be made compulsory along with the requirement that the couple make a joint declaration regarding the gifts exchanged during marriage.
12. Punish Dowry Givers: If the complainant admits giving dowry in the complaint, the courts should take cognizance of the same and initiate proceedings against them under the relevant sections of the Dowry Prohibition Act
13. Penalize corrupt Investigation Officers: If it is apparent to the court that a fair investigation has not been conducted by the investigation officer, and that the husbandand his family have been charge-sheeted without proper verification of the complaint, the investigation officer should be penalized for gross negligence of duty.
14. NRI Issues : Unless they are proven to be guilty after the due judicial process, NRIs should be a given a fair chance to justice by assuring them of the following -a) Permission to return to country of employment b) No impoundment/revocation of passport and no Interpol Red Corner Notices. c) No unnecessary arrests d) Expeditious investigation and trial
15.Gender Neutral: Everyone should have equal rights and responsibilities, irrespective of gender. In the current social context, there should be similar laws to protect harassed husband and his family members from an unscrupulous wife.[25]
This Section only provides for the remedy to woman only and these days it is being used as a ‘brahamastra’ by the woman. It is a highly debatable issue these days, if this problem is not solved by legislation it may become a bane for the society. People’s trust over the judiciary will come to an end. So it’s high time that this Section be amended and some changes like mentioned above should be brought up in this law.
[1]The Indian penal Code, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, 30th edition reprint 2008,pg. 917
[25]After looking to the report of following suggestions have been made Justice Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, 2003 <http://www.mha.nic.in/pdfs/criminal_justice_system.pdf>chapter 16.
Also at
Following widespread complaints of the anti-dowry law being misused to lodge false cases, the government has decided to review the stringent provisions of the legislation. The Law Commission of India, which advises the government on legal issues, is considering grounds to recommend amendments to section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with physical and mental cruelty by husbands and their relatives against wives over dowry. Currently this section allows the police to arrest the accused named in a complaint without a warrant and even before investigation. Besides, there is no provision for a compromise between the two parties.
"We've referred the matter to the Law Commission for its opinion since a very large number of complaints have been received against this section," law minister M Veerappa Moily told HT.
He said the Supreme Court had last year asked the government twice to take a re-look at the 28-year-old anti-dowry law following a spurt in its misuse, resulting in old people, pregnant women and even children being booked on false complaints.
Independent studies have put the conviction rate in cases registered under this section at less than 5%, indicating that most of the cases are false.
The Law Commission is examining three aspects - whether it is feasible to categorise the offence as bailable, to allow the complainant to withdraw a complaint in case of a compromise with the court's permission, and if the police should retain the power to make arrests on their own.
"We are examining how to give a human touch to this section, which has a very high potential for misuse. Our concentration is to make the offence bailable, non-cognisable and compoundable," said commission member justice (retd) Shiv Kumar Sharma.
A compoundable offence permits withdrawal of a complaint if both sides patch up.
On August 13 last year, the Supreme Court had stated, "Such is the level of exaggeration of cruel behaviour on the part of husbands and their relatives that to find the truth is a Herculean task in a majority of these complaints."
The top court's observation had come in response to a petition filed by a resident of Surat, Preeti Gupta, who had been named in a dowry complaint by her sister-in-law Manisha Poddar in Jharkhand, after Poddar's marriage with Gupta's brother soured.
