Government plans amendments in dowry harassment law to prevent misuse of its provisions - Compoundable and Bailable

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". 

Credits - http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-government-plans-amendments-in-dowry-harassment-law-to-prevent-misuse-of-its-provisions-2086573

Is ipc 498a really invalid and had been repealed ? SC examines

Is ipc 498a really invalid, redundant and had been repealed ?

Well. lets us do a small search and find out

Go through the pdf at the below link for The Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (46 of 1983)

http://www.498a.org/contents/amendments/Act%2046%20of%201983.pdf

The Amendment of Act 45 of 1860 is the amendment through which IPC 498a was inserted in Chapter XXA of the IPC. 

Here is the copy of the Repealing and Amending Act, No. 19 of 1988, on March 31, 1988 

http://www.theindianlawyer.in/statutesnbareacts/acts/r30.html#_Toc39458082

Now if one scrolls down through the years to 1983 one finds 

1983                         46                       The Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983  The whole

Screenshot below

So as per Repealing and Amending Act, No. 19 of 1988, on March 31, 1988 The Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (46 of 1983) through which IPC 498a had been repealed as a whole, simultaneously if that is the argument then all the amendments to Crpc sections of 174,176,198-A and Section 113 of Indian evidence act are also invalid.

Here is the link to THE REPEALING AND AMENDING ACT, 2001.ACT NO. 30 OF 2001.[3rd September, 2001.]

http://www.helplinelaw.com/docs/THE%20REPEALING%20AND%20AMENDING%20ACT,%202001

which repeals the "Primary" Repealing and Amending Act, No. 19 of 1988, of March 31, 1988 that is said to have repealed IPC 498a.


So the only point that stands is that IPC 498a was INVALID in period between 31st  March 1988 and 3rd September 2001, else there is NO force in the arguement of Pandit Parmanand Katara on the current invalidity of IPC 498a (and other relevant sections of CRPC and IEA) due to the effect of Repealing act 1988 and is therefore is more likely to fall flat.

Surely there is NO option but to make the IPC 498a BAILABLE to stop massive Misuse and abuse of this controversial and notorious draconian anti human right law


Below is Screenshot of THE REPEALING AND AMENDING ACT, 2001.ACT NO. 30 OF 2001, the portion marked in RED is the area of interest

It would be very interesting to watch the the solicitor general and legal eagles rebutt.

Mark your calender for date 14th August 2014 !

The full news is below 

SC to check validity of wife-harass law

R. BALAJI

The Supreme Court

New Delhi, Aug. 6: The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether the controversial Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, dealing with harassment of a wife, is valid or not following a claim that the law was repealed in 1988.

“If that is so, are we convicting and prosecuting people under an invalid law?” a bench headed by Justice H.L. Dattu asked, directing solicitor general Ranjit Kumar to respond to the claim. Kumar sought two weeks’ time.

The bench, which also included Justices P.C. Ghose and Arun Misra, listed the matter for August 14.

Section 498A, which provides for punishment of a husband and/or his relatives for subjecting a woman to cruelty or harassing her, has been the subject of controversy following claims that it was being abused by some women to get back at estranged husbands and in-laws.

The apex court, which recently ruled that no person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment up to seven years should be arrested without proper investigation, had specifically mentioned that Section 498A was sometimes being used as a “weapon rather than a shield by disgruntled wives”.

On Monday, senior counsel Pandit Parmanand Katara, appearing for the petitioner, Ravindra alias Ravi, told the court that Section 498A could not be invoked in the country because it was repealed in 1988.

Ravi is challenging Uttar Pradesh police’s decision to invoke the section against him and his family members on the basis of a complaint by his estranged wife.

The petitioner has alleged that the provision is being misused by his wife, whom he has accused of adultery and of extorting Rs 11 lakh from him with threats of false complaints of harassment.

The couple were married on February 24, 2012, in Mathura district according to Hindu customs and rites. The wife filed the case under Section 498A on January 18, 2013, following which Ravi and his family members were arrested. They are now out on bail.

According to the petitioner, Section 498A of IPC, inserted in Chapter XXA of the IPC after the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983, on December 25, 1983, vide Act No. 46 of 1983, was repealed “as the whole” by the Repealing and Amending Act, No. 19 of 1988, on March 31, 1988. As such, it cannot be treated as law, Katara told the bench.

The lawyer said that since the provision had been repealed, its application by police and consequent judicial proceedings were arbitrary, unconstitutional, void in law and hence violative of Articles 14 (right to equality) and 20 (prohibition against conviction for violation of any non-existent law) and 21 (right to liberty) of the Constitution.

It is mandatory for any law or amended provision to be notified in the official gazette after the presidential notification. Any subsequent repealing act is also notified in the gazette.

Katara told The Telegraph he was in possession of the notification relating to the repealed act. “Yes, I have copies of the repealed notification. I had given three copies to the bench. It is now for the government to rebut my assertion,” he said.

The counsel, however, admitted that the repealed act is not reflected in the official gazette. But he said it was for the government to explain.

Sources close to the solicitor general said the government does not have any material to show the act was repealed. “We are examining the matter further. But, for the moment we do not have any material to say that the act was repealed. Just wait and see when the case comes up for hearing,” a top law officer said.

Source- http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140807/jsp/nation/story_18695977.jsp

Genuine compromise can make ipc 498a compoundable but Can’t nix rape case even after compromise: SC | Isnt it genuinely promoting extortion ?

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.

Source-http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Cant-nix-rape-case-even-after-compromise-SC/articleshow/39186138.cms

Govt mulls amendments to anti-dowry law to add clause for misuse of ipc 498a

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.

Source-http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-mulls-amendments-to-anti-dowry-law/articleshow/39095407.cms

Misuse of Dowry and Domestic Violence Act is a Human Rights Issue

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)

Source-http://ibnlive.in.com/news/misuse-of-dowry-and-domestic-violence-act-is-a-human-rights-issue/484787-3.html

498a badlaw kitna zaroori. Amend ipc 498a

498a badlaw kitna zaroori.
Swaroop Sarkar on  Harayana Expresss TV

The Truth and Reality of Husband-Male Suicide in INDIA - Misuse and abuse of IPC 498A and Dowry Laws, Destroying the Feminist Lies

The Truth and Reality of Husband-Male Suicide in INDIA - Misuse and abuse of IPC 498A and Dowry Laws, Destroying the Feminist Lies

Source-http://sffdelhitrainingsessions.blogspot.in/2014/07/NCRBArneshSupremeCourt.html

Boon or bane? Kolkata can't agree on 498A

Boon or bane? Kolkata can't agree on 498A
As by TNN | Jul 5, 2014, 02.33AM IST

KOLKATA: The Supreme Court verdict on Section 498A that police have to investigate before arresting the accused has sparked a debate in Kolkata. While women's rights groups fear it might weaken battered wives' only remedy against abuse and torture, legal experts feel it will help prevent misuse of the law and make it more balanced.

Bengal is a lab case for Section 498A a whopping 29,800 cases were registered in the state 2013, but led to only 2.3% convictions. This has been the trend for the last few years.

These figures indicate that an alteration was necessary, lawyer Shekhar Bose says. "In 80% of the registered complaints, the charges are fabricated or exaggerated. There have been numerous instances where members of the husband's family, who live abroad or in other cities, have been arrested. Such a law cannot exist without an amendment," Bose said.

Lawyer Jayanta Chatterjee remarked that the vast majority of complainants were from urban areas, where many case were lodged by women "to teach their husbands and in-laws a lesson". "Thousands of women in rural interiors, who face genuine abuse, neither know about the law nor have access to police and lawyers," he pointed out, adding: "We need Section 498A for women who are abused and tortured. But we also need to make sure that it's not misused. False complaints are lodged too often, leading to family break-ups. Eventually, it's not just the husband who suffers in such cases, but also the wife. This provision for an enquiry will help stop that."

However, State Women's Commission chairperson Sunanda Mukherjee doesn't agree that misuse is reason enough to alter the law. The provision for enquiry shuts the door on women seeking justice, she argues. "Every law is liable to be misused. People are wrongly charged for murder under Section 302. So, do we stop punishing murderers?" she asked.

A law which is yet to be used by majority of victims can't be said to have been misused, she pointed out. "Section 498A is not yet accessible to thousands of women in marginalized sections who are abused, tortured and thrown out of their homes. Yes, it has been misused by some women in cities, but that can't justify this alteration which makes the law ineffective. We all know that left to them, police won't make any effort to arrest even a genuine offender. They could be bribed to scrap or fudge an enquiry. More importantly, how can you find evidence for psychological torture, which is very important in Section 498A?" she asks.

Former women's commission member Bharati Mutsuddi sees it as a major setback for women's rights. "Women are now at the mercy of police and administration, which were always insensitive to them. Section 498A was the only major weapon women had against marital abuse and it's now taken away. The law was the result of a long struggle for justice. All that effort and struggle now goes down the drain," she said.

Author Suchitra Bhattacharya felt it was better to make some investigation before arresting the accused. "I know many cases, particularly in urban areas, where the women take advantage of this law. They make false allegations and the in-laws have to suffer," she said.

Lawyer Sudipa Bhattacharya felt the alteration will make it a more balanced law, but the poor and marginalized could suffer. "It will be difficult for poor, illiterate women in our villages to get police to act," she said.

Bose argues that it is too early to conclude that the law has turned impotent and that police will be biased against women. "First, it remains a non-bailable section which means the law is strong enough. An offender, if found guilty, will face the same stringent penalties. It will be hasty to assume that police will allow offenders to go scot-free. Let us give the new law a fair run for it is a far more balanced and fair one," said Bose.

Mahua Bhattacharjee of Parash Pathar, an organization that fights for 498A "victims" across the country, said: "This is a great relief against misuse of the dowry law which has left as many victims as it has secured the fate of women against dowry atrocity." Many grey areas still exist, she remarked. "Since it is non-cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable, a 498A case cannot be withdrawn by the complainant. I know a couple, who are still fighting the 498A case years after their differences were resolved."

But why does Bengal top the list of 498A cases? "It is because of changing values of Bengali women. There is great deal of disharmony in families with saas-bahu relations. The daughter-in-law files a 498A complaint to teach her husband and mother-in-law a lesson, but eventually the complaint turns out to be too costly for both parties," said Bhattacharjee.

Sourav Ganguly, a lawyer with an expertise in handling 498A cases, said, It is a common practice by the prosecution specially in this part of the country that an accused is forwarded before a Magistrate along with a document commonly known as the ?Forwarding Report', while dealing with the question of detaining the accused for a period of more than 24 hours only deals with the forwarding report, the written complaint, the formal F.I.R prepared by the Police, the arrest memo, medical report of the accused and some times with the seizure list if supplied by the prosecution.

After this apex court judgment, the magistrate has to apply his judicial mind to determine whether the circumstance justify detention of the accused in police custody. Police custody being an infringement of liberty should not be ordered as a matter of course as the law has for his protection provided for the compulsory production of a person before a Magistrate either 24 hours of his arrest and this constitutional right has been given "to prevent arrest and detention with a view to extract confession" and "to afford an early recourse to a judicial officer independent of the police on all questions of bail or discharge [30 CWN 985]. Section 167 Cr.P.C. has given him full discretion to order detention in such custody as the Magistrate thinks fit but if detention in police custody is ordered, he must record his reasons U/s 167 (3) Cr.P.C.

It will also prevent marital splits on flimsy grounds, the latter argued.

Source-http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/Boon-or-bane-Kolkata-cant-agree-on-498A/articleshow/37800684.cms

SC sets Arrest Guidelines for Police and Magistrate, Misuse of ipc 498a Dowry Laws, Callers share their experiences on Misuse of dowry laws- Sudarshan TV

SC sets Arrest Guidelines for Police and Magistrate, Misuse of ipc 498a Dowry Laws. 
Callers share their experiences on Misuse of dowry laws- Sudarshan TV 05 July 2015

Men and their family suffer due to False 498a cases and Misuse of 498a by Women and Police. Supreme Court enforces guidelines for arrests in dowry cases

Men and their family suffer due to False 498a cases and Misuse of 498a by Women and Police. Supreme Court enforces guidelines for arrests in dowry cases 

Amit Lakhani Atit Rajpara Manav Mishra Shouvik Basak share sufferings and harassment experiences due to False 498a cases and Misuse of ipc 498a in context to SC Judgment (02 July 2014 Arnesh Kr order) on 498a Misuse and Arrest guidelines laid (u/s s41 crpc) to be followed by Police and Magistrates on India TV news channel 05 July 2014

Full text of SC order @ http://bit.ly/1ooV9V2

India shifts dowry law against 'vindictive wives'

India shifts dowry law against 'vindictive wives'
As on Date July 4, 2014 By Amrit Dhillon

New Delhi: Munish Dalal became a national hate figure when his pretty and vivacious bride-to-be, Nisha Sharma, accused him of demanding more dowry on the eve of their marriage.

Ms Sharma was feted by the world’s press as an icon of feisty Indian womanhood for reporting her fiance to the police under the country’s anti-dowry laws.

These laws are aimed at tackling the husbands and in-laws who, even though they have received a dowry on marriage, abuse and torture a woman afterwards so that she asks her parents to hand over yet more cash and consumer durables.

Figures from 2012 show that one woman dies every hour in India over demands for more dowry.

The crime is so common that the law allows the police to arrest a man the moment his wife alleges that he demanded more dowry. No evidence has to be produced. Bail depends on the discretion of the judge. The man is considered guilty until he can prove his innocence.

But in a ruling this week, the Supreme Court said the police cannot arrest a man on the basis of an allegation. Condemning the law’s misuse by ''disgruntled'' wives ''as a weapon rather than a shield'', the court said the police must give reasons for the arrest that would then be examined by a magistrate.

''The ruling on arrests is long overdue. False cases had become an epidemic. We used to call it legal terrorism. Now men can sleep more peacefully,'' said Rohit Girdhar, a co-ordinator with the Save the Family Foundation in New Delhi, which has campaigned for the law to be amended.

Mr Girdhar, who was falsely accused by his wife but acquitted by the courts in 2012, said the foundation has thousands of victims whose ''poisonous and vindictive'' wives used the law to blackmail them into giving a fatter alimony, settle scores, ruin their name or to get custody of the children.   

One man who went to the foundation recently for counselling was a New Delhi music teacher. Mr Girdhar claims that the teacher’s wife was mentally unstable from the day he married her and kept false accusations of infidelity against him. Five years ago, as their marriage crumbled, she walked into the local police station to accuse him of demanding more dowry.

''That man’s entire family has been devastated. It took just one vicious woman to do it. He and his elderly parents have been running around the courts for eight years. By the time the verdict comes, it will be too late for this man. He has been damaged too much, he has lost his faith in people,'' Mr Girdhar said.

For women’s rights groups, given the high levels of violence against women, the ruling is retrograde. Brinda Karat, general-secretary of the All India Democratic Women’s Association, said she was opposed to the dilution of a law that had come after years of debate and struggle.

''Dowry is rampant, worse than ever before. I oppose any law being misused but our studies show that men do get bail. Why is the Supreme Court not equally concerned about the women who are brutally murdered over dowry?'' Karat said.

For Mr Dalal, the ruling is sweet vindication. After being painted as a national villain a decade ago, in 2012, he was cleared by the courts. It turned out his fiance had been in love with another man. 

''She didn’t want to marry me but was scared of her parents. By accusing me falsely, she was trying to get out of the marriage without incurring their anger,'' Mr Dalal said. 

Source : http://www.smh.com.au/world/india-shifts-dowry-law-against-vindictive-wives-20140704-zsvg8.html

DD NEWS (Hindi) Debate on SC Judgement (Arnesh Kr) on Misuse of 498a, Arrest Guidelines laid (As per s41 crpc ) for Police and Magistrate on 03 July 2014

DD NEWS (Hindi) Debate on SC Judgement   (Arnesh Kr) on Misuse of 498a, Arrest Guidelines laid (As per s41 crpc ) for Police and Magistrate on  03 July 2014

Swaroop Sarkar of SIF talks tough on Misuse of ipc 498a Domestic violence and other Women centric Gender Biased Laws. Exposes Politicians Feminists Media Bias

Full text of SC (Arnesh Kr) order @ http://bit.ly/1ooV9V2

Youtube Playlist SIF Participation - TV Media Debates on SC Judgement (Arnesh Kr) on Misuse of 498a, Arrest Guidelines laid (As per s41 crpc ) for Police and Magistrate on 03 July 2014

Youtube Playlist

SIF Participation - TV Media  Debates on SC Judgement (Arnesh Kr) on Misuse of 498a, Arrest Guidelines laid (As per s41 crpc ) for Police and Magistrate on 03 July 2014

Full text of SC (Arnesh Kr) order @ http://bit.ly/1ooV9V2

Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj on Debate on SC Judgement (Arnesh Kr) on Misuse of 498a, Arrest Guidelines laid (As per s41 crpc ) for Police and Magistrate

Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj on Debate on SC Judgement (Arnesh Kr) on Misuse of 498a, Arrest Guidelines laid (As per s41 crpc ) for Police and Magistrate on INDIA TV 03 July 2014

Full text of SC (Arnesh Kr) order @ http://bit.ly/1ooV9V2

Swarrop Sarkar of Save Indian Family (SIF) DD NEWS Debate on SC Judgement ( Arnesh Kr) on Misuse of 498a, Arrest Guidelines laid (As per s41 crpc) for Police and Magistrate

Debate on SC Judgement ( Arnesh Kr) on Misuse of 498a, Arrest Guidelines laid (As per s41 crpc ) for Police and Magistrate on  DD NEWS (English) 03 July 2014

Swaroop Sarkar of SIF talks tough on Misuse of ipc 498a Domestic violence and other Women centric Gender Biased Laws. Exposes Politicians Feminists Media Bias

Full text of SC (Arnesh Kr) order @ http://bit.ly/1ooV9V2

दहेज हत्या केस में मुकदमे के लिए आरोपी का खून और विवाह का रिश्ता होना चाहिए: SC

दहेज हत्या केस में मुकदमे के लिए आरोपी का खून और विवाह का रिश्ता होना चाहिए: SC

Thursday, July 3, 2014

नई दिल्ली : उच्चतम न्यायालय ने व्यवस्था दी है कि दहेज हत्या के मामले में किसी व्यक्ति पर मुकदमा चलाने के लिये उसे उस समय तक रिश्तेदार नहीं माना जा सकता जब तक पति से उसका खून, विवाह या गोद लिए जाने का रिश्ता नहीं हो।

शीर्ष अदालत ने साथ ही स्पष्ट किया कि उसका तात्पर्य यह नहीं है कि ऐसे व्यक्ति पर आत्महत्या के लिए उकसाने जैसे आरोप में मुकदमा नहीं चलाया जा सकता।

न्यायमूर्ति चंद्रमौलि कुमार प्रसाद और न्यायमूर्ति पी सी घोष की खंडपीठ ने कहा कि उन्हें इसमें कोई संदेह नहीं है कि भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 304 (बी) (दहेज हत्या) में पति के रिश्तेदार शब्द का आशय उन व्यक्तियों से है जिनका खून, विवाह या गोद लिए जाने के रिश्ते से संबंधित है।

न्यायालय ने दहेज हत्या के मामले में पंजाब एवं हरियाणा उच्च न्यायालय के फैसले के खिलाफ पंजाब सरकार की अपील पर यह व्यवस्था दी। राज्य सरकार ने इस मामले में एक व्यक्ति को आरोपी के रूप में सम्मन जारी करने का निर्णय निरस्त करने के उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश को चुनौती दी थी।

निचली अदालत ने इस मामले में एक व्यक्ति को आरोपी के रूप में तलब किया था। अदालत का कहना था कि वह मृतक महिला के पति का रिश्तेदार है और इस अपराध में शामिल है।

शीर्ष अदालत ने कहा कि यह व्यक्ति मृतक के पति की रिश्तेदार का भाई है और वह कानून में प्रदत्त पति के रिश्तेदार की परिभाषा के दायरे में नहीं आता है। न्यायालय ने कहा कि धारा 304-बी से यह ध्वनि निकलती है कि जब किसी महिला की विवाह के सात साल के भीतर सामान्य परिस्थितियों से इतर जलने या किसी दूसरी प्रकार की चोटों की वजह से मृत्यु होती है तो यह माना जायेगा कि उसके पति या पति के किसी रिश्तेदार से दहेज की खातिर हत्या का अपराध किया है यदि यह पता चलता है कि मृत्यु से ठीक पहले महिला के प्रति उसके पति या पति के किसी रिश्तेदार ने क्रूरता की है या उसे प्रताड़ित किया है।

शीर्ष अदालत ने उच्च न्यायालय का आदेश सही ठहराते हुये राज्य सरकार की अपील खारिज कर दी। न्यायालय ने कहा कि भारतीय दंड संहिता में ‘रिश्तेदार’ को परिभाषित नहीं किया गया है।

Source-http://zeenews.india.com/hindi/news/india/anti-dowry-law-misused-no-automatic-arrest-such-cases-sc/227040

TV Media Debate on SC Judgement on ipc 498a Misuse and automatic arrests in 498a ,guidelines laid for Police and Magistrates u/s s41 crpc- SIF Participation

TV Media  Debate on SC Judgement on ipc 498a Misuse and automatic arrests in 498a ,guidelines laid for Police and Magistrates u/s s41 crpc- SIF Participation


Shonee Kapoor and Amol Khurhe on
ABP News 
ABP News debate -1 : Is the dowry law being misused in the country?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nLwrwc-amI

ABP News Live debate - 2 : Badi Behas- Is the dowry law being misused in the country?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MADc4Wi_YZ0

On IBN7 - प्रश्नकाल: दहेज विरोधी कानून का दुरुपयोग? http://khabar.ibnlive.in.com/videos/123052
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7nRrVl9xiU

Swaroop Sarkar on 
On CNNIBN - No Dowry arrests till magistrate's nodhttp://ibnlive.in.com/videos/483531/no-dowry-arrests-till-magistrates-nod-share-your-views.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnRT_VwsyFE&feature=youtu.be

Swarup sarkar on IndiaNews

No arrest on mere allegations in dowry harassment cases: Supreme Court
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0bMiT8iEwY&feature=youtu.be

Ritwik Bisaria 
On NDTV India ( Hindi ) बड़ी खबर : दहेज विरोधी कानून में गिरफ्तारी जरूरी?
http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/badi-khabar/badi-khabar-arrest-necessary-in-section-498-a/328461

Amit lakhani on News24
Debate : Anti-dowry law misused, no automatic arrest in such cases: SC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucgYprAZTYE&feature=youtu.be
Sabse Bada Sawaal: Is anti-dowry law 'Legal Terrorism'?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do9It0CZ6IY&feature=youtu.be

Legal Experts share views on News24
Anti-dowry law misused, no automatic arrest in such cases: SC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZjfKLHhG5E&feature=youtu.be

Deepika Narayan on
On NDTV India (Hindi)
प्राइम टाइम : दहेज मामलों में गिरफ्तारी कितनी अहम?

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/prime-time/prime-time-is-arrest-necessary-in-dowry-cases/328488

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd6sYIKBxVQ

On Focus News Focus News Special - Khauff Ka Kanaun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N03Pwks10cQ

NitiCentral

Deepika Narayan speaks on Misuse of 498a and Supreme court directs to stop 'automatic' arrests under dowry prevention law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EbME0EDzLk


Zee News
No arrest on mere allegations in dowry harassment cases: SC

Part-1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeoia5h5Aoc

Part -2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaoPbTBhd1c

TV 9 marathi

Women MISUSING Anti-Dowry Law, Says SC
Part1  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_9k_bMfksI
Part 2  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Ugj7lAvSk
Part 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUVuYhGWJ0Q
Part 4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaYClu_GRZY

ABP Majha 

ABP Majha Vishesh : Dowry Law section 498A of IPC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19mHtLKOv_A

Day & Night News
Prime (Hindi) - Women Misusing India's Anti-Dowry Law

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOKc8mHx52k

P7News24x7
Women Misusing India's Anti-Dowry Law, Says Supreme Court

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIlvzJzni94

Anti-dowry law misused, no automatic arrest in such cases: SC

Anti-dowry law misused, no automatic arrest in such cases: Supreme Court

As by PTI Wednesday, July 02, 2014, 22:29

New Delhi: Expressing concern over misuse of anti-dowry law by "disgruntled" wives against her husband and in-laws, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that police cannot arrest accused in such cases "automatically" and it must give reasons for taking such steps which would be judicially examined. 

The apex court said the attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is "despicable" which must be curbed and directed all state governments to ensure that police do not resort to arresting in all offences punishable up to seven- year jail term including dowry harassment cases. 

"We direct all the state governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC (dowry harassment) is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down flowing from Section 41 CrPC," a bench headed by Justice CK Prasad said. 

It said that the police officer shall furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest before the magistrate.

"Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A is a cognisable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. 

"The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested," the bench said. 

The bench said the arrest curtails freedom, brings humiliation and casts scars forever and no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-bailable and cognisable. 

"The existence of the power to arrest is one thing, the justification for the exercise of it is quite another. Apart from power to arrest, the police officers must be able to justify the reasons thereof.

"No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness of the allegation," the bench said. 

Referring to crime statistics, the apex court said 1,97,762 persons were arrested in 2012 for offence under Section 498-A and nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision were women depicting that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. 

"Its share is 6 per cent out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5 per cent of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes except theft and hurt," it said. 

It said the rate of charge-sheeting in cases is as high as 93.6 per cent, while the conviction rate is only 15 per cent, which is lowest across all heads and as many as 3,72,706 cases are pending at trial stage. 

The apex court said that police in the country has not come out of its colonial mindset. 

"It has not come out of its colonial image despite six decades of Independence, it is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been emphasised time and again by courts but has not yielded desired result. 

"Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive," it said.

PTI

Source-http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/anti-dowry-law-misused-no-automatic-arrest-in-such-cases-sc_944639.html

Making wild allegations against spouse could lead to divorce: Supreme Court

Making wild allegations against spouse could lead to divorce: Supreme Court

As by Dhananjay Mahapatra,TNN | Jul 2, 2014, 06.07 AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that leveling wild allegations repeatedly by one spouse against the other could inflict mental agony and it would be a ground for the aggrieved person to move court seeking divorce citing "irretrievable breakdown of marriage".

Nearly seven years ago, the Supreme Court had formulated "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" as a ground for grant of divorce to couples and had suggested to the legislature to amend the law to provide statutory backing to this new ground for dissolution of marriage.

On Monday, a bench of justices SJ Mukhopadhaya and Dipak Misra added to that judgment and said leveling of wild allegations inflicts humiliation and affects the reputation of the aggrieved spouse.

Affirming the decree of divorce granted to Dr BV Ravi, an associate professor in a government hospital, the bench said his wife had been making wild allegations which portrayed him to be gender insensitive. The court also noted that she had been, without reason, refusing to go to live with him with their child and making false charges against his relatives.

Writing the judgment, Justice Misra said: "Marriage as a social institution is an affirmation of civilized social order where two individuals, capable of entering into wedlock, have pledged themselves to the institutional norms and values and promised to each other a cemented bond to sustain and maintain the marital obligation."

Justice Misra said different persons react differently to similar situations. "What could be mental cruelty in the life of two individuals belonging to particular strata may not amount to mental cruelty in respect of another couple belonging to a different stratum of society."

Referring to the wife's conduct, the bench said: "From this kind of attitude and treatment it can be inferred that the husband has been treated with mental cruelty and definitely he has faced ignominy being an associate professor in a government medical college. When one enjoys social status working in a government hospital, this humiliation affects the reputation and self-respect."

Despite the breakdown of marriage, the bench kept in mind the interests of the 16-year-old son of the couple and said it was the father's "bounden duty to provide for maintenance and education" of the child. Excluding the amount already paid to the wife, the court asked the husband to pay Rs 25 lakh to her in six months for the purpose of education of the child.

It directed the Bangalore family court to keep the money in a nationalized bank in the joint account of the child and mother, who can draw the interest to spend on her son's education.

Source-http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Making-wild-allegations-against-spouse-could-lead-to-divorce-Supreme-Court/articleshow/37607941.cms?

Have to follow Delhi high court order on domestic violence Act, says Bombay high court | PIL seeks to grant all women in house power to use Domestic Violence Act

Have to follow Delhi high court order on domestic violence Act, says Bombay high court

Pushpa (L) and her daughter Kusum filed the PIL

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Thursday was informed that the Delhi high court has upheld the inclusion of a mother of a male abuser for relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and also that the Supreme Court had rejected an appeal filed against this order.

A division bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice M S Sonak heard a petition by Kusum Harsora (54) and her 78-year-old mother challenging the exclusion of women, other than wife/live-in partner, of a male abuser. A magistrate had rejected their complaint against a sister-in-law and Kusum's two sisters on the grounds that a mother and sister do not qualify as "aggrieved persons" under the Act. Kusum informed the court that the Delhi HC in Kusumlata Sharma versus State of Delhi (NCR) on September 2, 2011, had held that that a mother-in-law is also entitled to file a domestic violence complaint against her daughter-in-law.

"While the Delhi HC does not say about a sister, but it is understood to include her. We'll have to follow the (Delhi HC) order," said Justice Shah.

But the Centre's advocate, Dhiren Shah, sought time to "confirm" the SC order and if the women and child welfare development ministry knew of it. The next hearing is on June 17.

Source - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Have-to-follow-Delhi-high-court-order-on-domestic-violence-Act-says-Bombay-high-court/articleshow/36451699.cms

----

PIL seeks to grant all women in house power to use Domestic Violence Act

Women in a household other than a daughter-in-law or a live-in partner could be allowed to file a case under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act if the Bombay High Court rules in favour of a Public Interest Litigation currently before it. 

A division bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice M S Sonak on Thursday gave the central government five days to verify if the Supreme Court had passed any order on the issue.

The court was hearing a PIL filed by a mother-daughter duo who are challenging the validity of Section 2(q) of the DV Act, which restricts the definition of a respondent to male members of the family. The PIL, filed by Kusum Harsora, 54, and her mother Pushpa, 78, says the section discriminates between women living in the same household.

During the hearing on Thursday, Kusum argued on the basis of details given in the PIL and later submitted a 2013 Delhi High Court judgment in which a mother-in-law was allowed to file a complaint under the DV Act against her daughter-in-law.

The court then asked the Union government's advocate, Dhiren Shah, to verify if there was any Supreme Court judgment on the issue and to inform the court of this after the lunch-break. The advocates informed the court that there was one SC judgment that could help Kusum but they wanted time to verify the facts.

The PIL says that both petitioners had lodged a complaint against Kusum's brother, sister-in-law and two sisters for subjecting them to mental and physical harassment. But in February 2012, a single-judge bench of the HC discharged all three women, holding that no complaint under the DV Act can be filed against the female members.

The mother-daughter petition challenges this very provision, saying that though the legislation is supposed to protect women from domestic violence, it discriminates between two women in a domestic relationship.

According to the PIL, while the provision allows a wife or a woman in a live-in relationship to file a complaint against her husband or male partner and/or any of his relatives, it does not allow other women in a domestic relationship to lodge a complaint and seek relief against other female members of the family. This would include a daughter-in-law, sister or daughter.

"The proviso ignores the fact that even female members of the family can be perpetrators of domestic violence. There is no rational basis of classification between a wife or a woman in a live-in relationship and other females of the family," says the PIL.

On Wednesday, the Union government had filed an affidavit saying that allowing a man's female relatives to seek relief under the said Act could make it prone to misuse. Though the affidavit agreed that women other than wives or partners were also susceptible to domestic violence, it denied that the Act causes undue hardship to other women in the house.

Source - http://www.mumbaimirror.com/mumbai/crime/PIL-seeks-to-grant-all-women-in-house-power-to-use-Domestic-Violence-Act/articleshow/36452656.cms

***