Misuse Of Section 498A, Indian Penal Code,1860

May. 26, 2020 • Architi Batra

INTRODUCTION

Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was inserted by the Criminal Law(Second Amendment) Act, 1983. Before the insertion of this section, such cases of cruelty were dealt with by general provisions such as assault, grievous hurt, etc. This section has opened the doors of justice for women who suffer cruelty at the hands of their husbands or relatives. The offense under this section is a cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offense. The explanation of the section also defines the meaning of cruelty. It means 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 Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is an account of failure by her or any other person related to her to meet such demand. The explanation defines the limits of the meaning of cruelty so the section is not misused for frivolous cases by the women. However, the precautions taken by the legislator has not stopped the filing of false cases by women and though the section has helped a number of women facing cruelty, it has also been misused by a number of them. It is in this light that this article brings forth the view of the Supreme Court on the misuse of Section 498A, IPC.

THIS RESEARCH PAPER DEALS WITH WHETHER SECTION 498A IPC,1860 IS MISUSED OR NOT?

The following topics covered in the research are –

To understand section 498A IPC,1860
Whether this section is being misused?
What can be done for the protection of men if misused?
Conclusion

Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code

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 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. 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 demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand

Domestic violence has been committed against the men as well and there are no laws for their protection. For the protection of women against cruelty, dowry, rape and many other sexual offenses laws have been created but for the protection of men there are no specific laws. We live in a society where equality is the upmost thing, we crave for but when it comes to protection under the laws then why there are no laws for men? It becomes very difficult for the men to prove cruelty upon them. It is already assumed that we live in a male-dominated society so it is only the male who should be responsible for committing such heinous crime.

This section was added for the protection of women against cruelty and to punish a husband and his relative who torture and harass the wife with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demands or to drive her to commit suicide. To make the offense deterrent section 498A prescribe a punishment of three years also a fine on the husband or the relatives, who subject her to cruelty.

Definition of cruelty under a different ambit:

Cruelty by its very meaning includes both physical and as well as mental torture. cruelty may consist of physical violence; other conduct that endangers the life or safety of the complaining spouse; abusive or derogatory language; neglect; humiliation; threats of violence, etc. A single act of cruelty must generally be extreme to be sufficient for filing a divorce complaint. In cases where the parties have not lived separately for the required period, often grounds will be alleged alternatively as irreconcilable differences or mental cruelty. Even bickering and taunting a person over a thing again and again can lead to mental torture.

Cruelty is one of the grounds for divorce -

The Hindu Marriage Act-1955 has given the legal provision for divorce on the basis of cruelty under section – 13(1)(ia) as follows;

Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty.

They have given the following explanation within the scope of cruelty under section 13(1)(ia);

It is sufficient that if the cruelty is of such type that it becomes impossible for spouses to live together.
The leveling of a false allegation by one spouse about the other having alleged illicit relations with different persons outside wedlock amounted to mental cruelty;
A husband cannot ask his wife that he does not like her company, but she can or should stay with other members of the family in the matrimonial home.
Social torture by any one of the spouses to the other found to be mental torture and cruelty.

If the intention to harm, harass, or hurt could be inferred by the nature of the conduct or brutal act complained of, cruelty could be easily established. But the absence of intention should not make any difference in the case. The cruel treatment may also result from the cultural conflict between the parties.

foster sisters do not come is not a relative in the ambit of section 498A IPC,1860.

113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.—When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.1[113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.—When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband." Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

MISUSE OF SECTION 498A

The explanation defines the limits of the meaning of cruelty so the section is not misused for frivolous cases by the women.

However, the precautions taken by the legislator has not stopped the filing of false cases by women and though the section has helped a number of women facing cruelty, it has also been misused by a number of them. It is in this light that this article brings forth the view of the Supreme Court on the misuse of Section 498A, IPC.

In the case of Kanaraj vs. State of Punjab[1], the apex court observed that “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”

In Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam[2] The Court held that “Cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC is to be established in the context of Section 498-A IPC as it may be different from other statutory provisions.

In the case of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar[3], the Court observed that the fact that Section 498A, IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offense, it is more often than not is used as a weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives. Thus, the Court laid down certain guidelines that the police officer must follow while arresting under Section 498A, IPC.

In the case of Saritha v R. Ramachandran [4] here the court did notice that the reverse trend and asked the Law Commission and Parliament to make the offense a non-cognizable and bailable one. Suppose if the suggestion given by the court is approved then it would give a fair chance to the men and above all help meet the ends of justice.

All these above-stated cases clearly show that false cases have been filed against men to send them behind the bars. For no-fault, the in-laws especially old parents of the husband, are taken to jail the moment a false complaint is filed against them by a woman under section 498A. Roping in-laws without a reason and for setting a score with husband, the false and exaggerated 498A complaints are causing havoc to marriages, said by a bench of chief justice HL Dattu and A K Sikri.

REFORMS THAT COULD BE ADOPTED

It is necessary to take preventing measures to discourage women from using this against men. The apex court has also expressed its concern over the increasing misuse of the said provision. Also the court has given various guidelines to curb the menace faced by the men due to misuse of this provision. But it is very apparent that the court’s guidelines had failed miserably in preventing the misuse of the section so there is a need for effective steps.

Proper organizations should be established for providing counseling to the families.
Women who are found liable for misusing the provision should be given stringent punishments and for this legislature needs to introduce some law /provision under which a woman misusing this provision can be strictly punished.
NGOs should be established to help the men who are falsely implicated under this section by their wives. Though some NGOs like purushavakasa samarakshana samithi (Kerala) and organizations like men’s Rights association working under SIFF(save Indian family foundation) are there for men there is a need to establish more of such NGOs.
The punishment of misusing the section should be as high as it is for the men who are guilty of cruelty.

In the case of Rajesh Kumar & Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017), the Supreme Court laid down comprehensive directions to prevent the misuse of the provision of section 498A, IPC after carefully referring cases such as Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India(5), Preeti Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand(6), Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand(7) and reports such as 243rd Law Commission Report and 140th report of the Rajya Sabha Committee.

The directions laid down by the Supreme Court are as follows:

Family Welfare Committee - The constitution of one or more Family Welfare Committees in every district which shall preferably consist of three members. Such a constitution is to be made by the District Legal Services Authorities.
The members may be volunteers/social workers/retired persons/wives of working officers/other citizens or anyone who may be found suitable and willing.
Frequent review of the constitution and working of such committees in addition to the yearly review which is a minimum requirement. Such a review shall be done by the District and Session Judge of the district who is also ex-officio chairman of the District Legal Services Authority.
The Committee members will not be called as witnesses.
Every complaint has to be referred to the Committee and the committee has to submit the report to the authority who referred to such complaint. The report may be then considered by the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate on its own merit.
The work of the committee includes looking into every complaint under Section 498A received by the police or the Magistrate.
No arrest should normally be effected until the report of the committee is received.
Investigating Officer - Investigating Officers to be designated within a month from the delivery of judgment to investigate the complaints under Section 498A and other connected offenses.
Such designated officers may be required to undergo training for such duration (not less than one week) as may be considered appropriate. The training may be completed within four months from the date of delivery of the judgment.
Settlement - In cases where a settlement is reached, the District and the Sessions Judge to dispose of the proceedings. Such disposal also includes the closing of the criminal case if the dispute primarily relates to matrimonial discord. The District and Sessions Judge may also nominate any other senior Judicial Officer to do the same.

CONCLUSION

Journalist Kulbhushan stated "Filing a non-bailable dowry case under IPC 498A is easier than ordering a meal. But while a restaurant can refuse service, the police normally arrest the groom and the in-laws. While the Indian media is flooded with reports of dowry-related bride torture, it hardly mentions the horrific cases of suffering husbands at the hands of unscrupulous wives."

Justice J D Kapoor Says: ‘‘There is a growing tendency among women, which is further perpetuated by their parents and relatives to rope in each and every relative including minors and even school going children of distant relatives.’’

Life Kolkata High Court Justice S.P. Talukdar said the “dangerous” practice of misusing Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (cruelty on housewives by husbands and in-laws) should be immediately stopped.

Section 498A IPC should be made available and non- cognizable offense and as to discourage the misuse of this section by the women, high penalties should be imposed on the person who is found to be misusing the law. This step is necessary to protect the innocent people from the garb of their wives who use this section as a weapon against their husbands or their relatives. Supreme court in its various judgments has considered this misuse of section 498A IPC as ‘legal terrorism’.

[The co-authors of this paper, Aakriti, and Abhilasha Sharma are 4th year Ba.Llb students at Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies,

GGSIPU, New Delhi]

Disclaimer: This article is an original submission of the Author. Niti Manthan does not hold any liability arising out of this article. Kindly refer to our Terms of use or write to us in case of any concerns.

[1] 2000 CriLJ 2993

[2] (2009) 13 SCC 330

[3] (2014) 8 SCC 273

[4] 2002 (6) ALD 319

[5] [2005 SCR 730]

[6] (2010) 7 SCC 667

[7] 2003 CriLJ 2759

Liked the article ?
Share this:

← Return to all blogs

Blog Categories

All Student's Pen Event Legacy