MISUSE OF DOWRY LAWS AGAINST THE HUSBAND IN INDIA
introduction
If the cry of “wolf” is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be available when the actual “wolf” appears.
The recent suicide committed by Bangalore techie Atul Shubhash has sparked a new debate on the misuse of dowry laws by wives against their husbands. The peers have started demanding the establishment of the Men’s Commission in order to secure the interest of men/husbands against the dowry menace.
The institution of marriage is greatly revered in our Country Bharat. However, with the misuse of dowry laws such as Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Section 80 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2024) new legal terrorism can be unleashed. Numerous instances have come to light where the complaints against the husband are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases, the acquittal of the accused/husband does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery.
We must be conscious of the fact that Section 498-A was introduced avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman by her husband and his relatives. There has been a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. Sometimes, a small fight between the husband and the wife becomes the cynosure of the judicial determination. Pithily put, it is the fluctuating fortunes of the couples that let the fight between them travel from the bedroom to the Courtroom.
This article analyses the misuse of Section 498-A of the IPC, 1860, and argues how the purpose of the said provision has been defeated. The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offense has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shields by disgruntled wives. On multiple occasions, the Courts have highlighted that the simplest way to harass a husband is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. Moreover, it has been seen that the bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of husbands who are in the evening of their life and their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested and such arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom, and cast scars forever.
What Is Section 498-A Of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.)?
Section 498-A of the IPC, 1860 states that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. The object for which Section 498-A IPC was introduced is amply reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons while enacting the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 46 of 1983.
It is the right earnest to mention here that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-compoundable offense. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints that are not even bonafide and are filed with oblique motives. At the same time, the rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.
Sufferings caused to the husband and his relatives
The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in the majority of these complaints. The tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of a criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.
The allegations of harassment of the husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony, and bitterness in the relationship among the parties.
It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.
Court’s Judgment On False Dowry Cases
1. In the case of Rajesh Sharma & ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2017) 3 SCC 821, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it is a matter of serious concern that a large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498A alleging harassment of married women. The Court noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled-for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. The uncalled-for arrest may ruin the chances of a settlement.
2. In the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the petitioner (the spouse) alleged that she had been subjected to demands for dowry and was subsequently expelled from her matrimonial home for failing to comply with those demands. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail but was denied, prompting her to approach the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition. The Supreme Court observed that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to cruelty against a woman by her husband or his relatives, is a cognizable and non-bailable offense.
However, the Court noted that this provision is often misused as a tool of harassment rather than a protective mechanism for genuinely aggrieved spouses. The misuse frequently results in the unwarranted arrest and detention of the accused, including elderly family members such as grandmothers and minor grandchildren, without substantive grounds. To address these concerns, the Court issued specific guidelines for the application of Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
It emphasized that arrests under these provisions must be made only after a thorough and objective assessment of the authenticity of the allegations. The Court directed law enforcement officers to exercise due diligence and caution, ensuring that arrests are not made mechanically or prematurely. The overarching principle outlined was to prevent unnecessary harassment and protect individuals from arbitrary detention.
3. In Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam (2009) 13 SCC 330 the Court stated that, as regards Sec 498-An IPC, "Merciless" with the ultimate purpose of sec 498-An IPC should be established because it could very well not be the same as other laws. It should be regulated by considering the directness of the man, by assessing the seriousness or truth of his actions, and by finding out whether it is likely to lead the lady to terminate it all etc. It must be said that the lady was consistently exposed to the brutality or nothing else in the immediate vicinity of the season. Moreover, in Sec 498- An IPC's provisions, the Court decided that frivolous struggles cannot be called "graciousness".
Conclusion
Since 2006 there has been a steady growth in the amount of cases under Sec 498-A. In the number of future instances, an annual normal increase of 10% was observed between 2006 and 2017. A decrease in the number of instances occurred in 2017. The number of cases to come in this Section has in any event increased by 6 percent again in 2018. The number of upcoming cases under 498A has been increasing steadily by 161 percent over the course of those 13 years.
The resolution of a case under Section 498A IPC largely depends on the quality of evidence presented before the Court and the effectiveness of legal representation. In Indian society, the phrase what will people say reflects a societal tendency to prioritize public perception over individual rights. This often discourages individuals from filing police complaints or pursuing legal remedies. Moreover, societal attitudes frequently perpetuate a narrative that men "deserve" harsh treatment due to historical societal dynamics and gender inequalities.
This cultural bias has significant implications in a predominantly patriarchal society, where public opinion often influences judicial proceedings. Many women, post-marriage or during domestic relationships, may feel constrained by the fear of societal backlash or personal repercussions. Section 498A, intended as a protective mechanism for women against cruelty, offers immediate legal recourse and penal consequences for the husband and his family. However, its misuse has raised concerns, leading to judicial reforms aimed at preventing abuse of the provision. Courts now emphasize safeguarding the rights of the accused, ensuring that innocent individuals do not suffer public dishonor due to false allegations.
The judiciary has acknowledged the increasing number of fabricated cases under Section 498A and taken measures to handle such matters with caution. If false accusations are proven, the spouse and their family are protected from unjust consequences. For individuals facing allegations under Section 498A, understanding their legal rights and effectively asserting them is crucial for a fair defense.