ABSTRACT
Women are always considered as a weaker section of the society as they are more prone to crimes. Crimes on women are not only committed by the strangers but also by those people who are closely related to her. Indian legislature enacted various laws to protect women from such crimes, out of which one is Section 498A of IPC which protects women from her husband and their relatives. But women are taking undue advantage of such laws. Section 498A of IPC is a boon or curse? It’s a matter of time and situation. This section is added to protect women from the cruelty of her husband and his relatives. But with the passage of time this section is used as a weapon by women to torture their husband and the relatives. It’s a high time that law makers should think about the advantages and disadvantages of Section 498A. This article is meant to critically analyze the situation of Section 498A of IPC, to check whether the advantages of this section is more or disadvantages are more, whether the section need to be repealed or amended. Different cases were discussed here so as to minutely analyze the scope of Section 498A of IPC.
USE & MISUSE OF S.498A of IPC
INTRODUCTION
In India, we treated female equivalent to the goddesses and they are symbolizes as “Laxmi” and “Saraswati”. At the same time, she is also subjected to cruelty. One of such cruelty is domestic violence. The United Nations defines violence against women as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual, or mental harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life.” [1] In the year 1983, Section 498 A was introduced in IPC with the intent to protect a married woman from cruelty. It provides protection to the women from against cruelty and harassment resulted from dowry.[2] To deal with issues regarding dowry, we do have Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, but this statute does not prove sufficient for the problems related to dowry and inspite of this statute, the dowry related cruelty and harassment does not came to an end. That’s why, legislature inserted Section 498A in the IPC.
However, it is one of the most controversial Section of IPC. Since its inception, it has been misused by the women. It is difficult to identify whether this Section proves helpful for the society or proved to be, drastically, use as a weapon by the women to harass their in – laws. But, surely we need Section 498A because even if it is misused, we still need stringent laws to punish those who actually commit the crime.
WHAT IS SECTION 498A?
498A. 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.[3]
In the case of Shobha Rani vs Medhukar Reddy[4], the Supreme Court explains that with the advent of Section 498A of IPC, a new facet has been given to the meaning of cruelty. An explanation which is attached to Section 498A of IPC clearly explains the meaning of cruelty. Even it can be derived from Section 13(1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that cruelty need not to be deliberate or intentional.
There was another case of Inder Raj Malik vs Sunita Malik[5] which defined the word ‘cruelty’ in accordance with the explanation attached to Section 498A that ‘cruelty’ among other things is harassment to a woman to meet any unlawful demand related to any property or valuable security. Kinds of cruelty covered under this Section includes following:
- Cruelty by persistent demands.
- Cruelty be extra marital relations
- Harassment for non dowry demands
- Cruelty by vexatious litigation.
- Cruelty by deprivation and wasteful habits
- Cruelty by false attacks on chastity
- Cruelty by non acceptance of baby girl
- Taking away children.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983) introduced Section 498A of IPC. The same Act also introduces Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act and Section 304B of IPC. Section 113B of Indian evidence Act deals with presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. It says that when a married woman has been subject to cruelty or harassment soon before her death by her husband and his relatives and if such woman committed suicide within seven years of marriage, then it is presumed that such suicide has been abetted by her husband or her husband’s relatives. This Section also explains that the word ‘cruelty’ must be having the same meaning as mentioned in Section 498A of IPC.[6]
LEGISLATIVE INTENT BEHIND SECTION 498A OF IPC
Before, moving forward, it is very important to know the intention of legislature behind framing this Section. The main objective of this Section is to provide protection to the women who are being harassed by her husband and his relatives and also to protect those women who became victims of cruelty or abuse by the same. In 1980-82, there were quiet a feminist movement which were visible with very passionate activists. The two prominent cases that triggered the street protest in Pune city was dowry death of Manjushree Sharda and the murder of Shaila Latkar. The movements were aggressive because they demanded to investigate the causes of women’s harassment.[7]
The feminist movement demanded for the legislation which is comprehensive in nature on domestic violence. During the movement, one more incident happened that is Bhanwari Devi case.[8] Because of all the movements and campaigns, a law was enacted which is known as Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (46 of 1983) which amended Code of Criminal Procedure (1973), Indian Penal Code (1860), the Dowry Prohibition Act (1961) and The Indian Evidence Act, (1872) with the sole intention of preventing married women from the abuse, cruelty and harassment.[9]
The Bombay High Court in B.K.Moghe vs State of Maharashtra & others[10] clearly outlined the intention and object behind enactment of Section 498A. It says that it is a matter of concern that social evil dowry despite being punished under The Dowry prohibition Act, 1961, has been increased. A Joint Committee of the Parliament was constituted to examine the working of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Most of the cases deal with the cruelty by the husband and the relatives of the husband which results in the suicide of the helpless women. It is, therefore, proposed by the committee to amend the IPC, Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act, so that the laws can effectively deal not only with cases of Dowry Death but also cruelty by in laws to married woman. The Joint Committee of Parliament had also recommended that the cruel treatment towards a married woman for demanding and obtaining the dowry must be made punishable. As per Committee, very large amount of women were subject to ill treatment even if it was not dowry death, for bringing insufficient dowry which must require strict punishment so that dowry deaths can be controlled and as a result, Section 498A of IPC was introduced in the year 1983.
Not only Section 498A of IPC was inserted but Criminal law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 has amended Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code, Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death has been inserted in Section 176 of Criminal Procedure Code, Section 198A is inserted in Criminal Procedure Code, Section 113A has been added to The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.[11]
RELATED LAWS
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983) introduced Section 498A of IPC. Same act also introduced Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act and Section 304B of IPC. Section 113 of Indian Evidence Act deals with presumption as to abetment of suicide by married women. It says that when a married women has been subject to cruelty or harassment soon before her death by her husband and his relatives and if such women committed suicide within seven years of marriage, then it is presumed that such suicide has been abetted by her husband and her husband’s relatives. The section also explains that the word ‘cruelty’ must be having meaning as mentioned in Section 498A of IPC.[12]
MISUSE OF LAW
Before discussing use of law, first I discuss how this law is misused by woman. Though the section has helped a number of women who faces cruelty and harassment and inspite being steps taken by the legislator, this does not stop the women from filing the file cases. This section has been misused by women on enormous number of times.[13] The abuse of this section is increasing and is used by well educated ladies. The crime under Section 498A of IPC is non – bailable, hence results in impromptu putting a person behind the bars, making it impossible for a married man to flee from conviction.[14]
The National Crime Record Bureau releases All India Crime Data every year. The cases registered under Section 498A are increasing every year although the conviction rates in such cases are also falling every year. The conviction rates are 1/4th of the total crime reported under Section 498A.[15]
There are few judgments of Supreme Court which bring forth the Supreme Court’s view on the misuse of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
- Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar[16]
The Supreme Court observed that “Crime in India 2012 Statistics” published by National crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows that during the year of 2012, total 1,97,762 persons were arrested for offence committed U/s 498A of IPC which is 9.4 % more than the previous year, that is for the year 2011. U/s 498A, the rate of charge sheeting is as high as 93.6% and the conviction is only 15 %. It is also observed by the Supreme Court that Section 498A of IPC is a non-bailable, cognizable offence, therefore, this section is mostly used as a weapon rather than shield by resentful wives who in turn results in harassing the husband and their relatives.
However, the court laid down certain guidelines for the police officers. The arrest must be made when the police officer are reasonably satisfied that the allegations made are genuine.
- Savitri Devi V/s Ramesh Chand and Others[17]
In this case, the allegations made by the petitioner was that the respondent did not like the clothes brought as customary gifts for the relatives of the husband by the petitioner and one of her sister-in-law made a remark for bringing less dowry. The court observed that non-acceptance of gifts and other remarks does not come under the purview of definition U/s 498A IPC. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition as it is highly misconceived and is used as a tool to harass the husband and his relatives.
- Rajesh Sharma and Others Vs. State of U.P and Others[18]
In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed certain guidelines in order to prevent misuse of Section 498A which are as follows:
- In every district, the District Legal Services Authorities constituted one or more family welfare committees. Whenever any police or magistrate received the complaint under Section 498A IPC, such complaint shall be referred to and looked into by such committee and present their report within one month to the committee. Till the time, report was not received; no arrest will be normally done by the police.
- Only the designated investigating officer of the area is allowed to investigate the complaints U/s 498A and other connected offences.
- The District and Sessions Judge will dispose off the proceedings, in case where a settlement is reached. Any other senior judicial officer can be appointed by the District and Sessions Judge to do the same.
- If a bail application is filled with at least one clear day’s notice to the public prosecutor, the same may be decided as far as possible on the same day.
- Personal appearance of all the family members especially out stationed members may not be required.
- It is at the discretion of the District Judge or any designated Judicial Officer appointed by the District Judge to club all the connected cases arising out of matrimonial disputes between the parties so that a holistic view must be taken by the court.
- Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar Vs. Union of India[19]
In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court modified the directions issued in Rajesh Sharma’s case. The court concluded that the directions with respect to Family Welfare Committee and their duties are not in accordance with any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The offence of cruelty is cognizable and non bailable offence, but due to directions passed in Rajesh Sharma’s case, it is impossible to make any arrest before the report is submitted to the committee, which ahs make the essence of the offence ineffective. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, did not interfered with the other directions such as Red Corner Notice, clubbing of cases, etc. The Supreme Court also found that some of the directions given in Rajesh Sharma’s case are potential enough to enter into legislative field as those are bedrock within the Indian Penal Code.
The radical women have used Section 498A of IPC as a weapon rather than shield as there is rise in the rate of education, financial security and modernization. The vengeful daughter in law has used this section to which many husbands and their relatives have become victims. Most of the wives ( in cases related to Section 498A) when are stressed with the trouble marriage, they use Section 498A as the weapon to blackmail as many cases turned out to be false cases and is also repeatedly accepted by Supreme Court and High Courts in number of cases.[20]
On this ground, the women can gain compensation in the form of money and they can also get divorced and then re marry. Many women activists and their groups are against the idea of making the offence non cognizable and bailable. According to activists, it gives accused a chance to escape conviction.
USE OF SECTION 498A of IPC
The dowry related violence in India is social evil which is not limited to a particular religion. Dowry related violence is deeply rooted in each and every part of the country. According to BBC report in 2013, there were 3, 09, 546 crimes which were reported of violence against women out of which for domestic violence alone the reported crimes are 118,666 in number. Section 498A of IPC worked as a greater rescuer for those women on which domestic violence occurs within four walls of the house. As per 2012 reports of Indian National Crime Record Bureau, the reported cases of dowry death across India are 8, 233. Once and man and a women is married, it is mandatory for the husband to take care and maintain his wife. But there is a disgrace on this sacred union which is known as dowry. Because of dowry many women were ill treated and sometimes killed for bringing insufficient dowry.[21] This provision has been used by Indian courts to safeguard the women from facing the cruelty faced by them in their married life. Maximum cases of domestic violence involve the demand of gifts or insufficiency of gift because of which women were ill treated, Harassed, tortured and even physically abused.[22] Few instances are as follows:
- Ram Krishan Jain and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh[23]
Continuous demand for gifts because gifts were insufficient, the girl was administered calmpase tablets and hence forth she even cut the arteries of each her hand.
- Surajmal Banthia and Another Vs. State of West Bengal[24]
In this case, the deceased was not given food many times and was slapped and tortured for many days. Additionally her father in law misbehaved with her many times. Such type of treatment is not acceptable.
- Ramesh Dalaji Godad Vs. State of Gujarat[25]
The Supreme Court held that to prove cruelty, it is not important to prove or show that the women was verbally abused or was beaten up. Denying her conjugal rights or not speak to her properly would also fall within the ambit of mental cruelty.
- Srinivasulu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh[26]
However, in this case, the Supreme Court stated that consequences of cruelty must be likely to establish in order to bring into regard the application of Section 498A of IPC. Consequences which drive a women to commit suicide or to cause injury to her health, physically or mentally must be taken into account.
These are just a few cases but there are several instances where women are being subject to cruelty. For them the only way to seek shelter is Section 498A of IPC.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
As we have already stated that there are times where Section 498A of IPC was abused by the women. We have discussed several important cases where women took significant help of Section 498A to harass her husband and in laws by sending them to jail as Section 498A is non bailable. However, women rights group justify the abuse by saying that abuse comes as a common feature with all other laws and moreover, the ratio of true cases over the false one is very high. But still, we cannot deny the fact that Section 498A of IPC has been continuously abused by the vengeful daughter in law.[27]
However, it is already seen in numerous cases that court took wrong perspective of Section 498A while deciding few cases. Like in case Ashok Batra and Others Vs. State[28], the court did not considered the letters of the deceased which states that harassment had taken place, as string evidence and without ordering for any further investigation, benefit of doubt given the appellant.
In another judgment in case Bomma Illaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh[29], complainant complained that her husband tortured her by physically forcing his wife to have sexual intercourse with him. He inserted his fingers and stick in her vagina which causes bleedings and severe pain but the court found him guilty only U/s 325 of IPC and not U/s 498A of IPC.
Such judgments were always criticized by many intellectual groups. Why in second case, he was not charged U/s 498A of IPC. Was sexual abuse does not come under the criteria of cruelty. Wasn’t her life was in danger by such acts of her husband. It has been seen in many cases that court does not consider mental cruelty caused to the women but their main focus was on physical cruelty. In few cases like State of Maharashtra Vs. Jaiprakash Krishna Mangaonkar and Others[30], the court considered mental cruelty as low tolerance power of women and in case Annapurnabai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh[31], mental cruelty to the women is associated with unstable mind.
In another case, the judge has made very narrow interpretation of this Section. The judges sometimes confine to dowry demands while considering cruelty. In this case, the court stated that merely because the husband and his relatives reprimand the women for immoral conduct, it does not amount to cruelty.[32]
In another case, the proximity of the death in relation to dowry demand was questioned. In this case, medical report clearly shows that the death was homicidal by strangulating but the court did not punish the accused U/s 498A of IPC. According to court, there were demand of dowry but such demands were in past and the court held that there was no proximity of death with demands and it was unlikely that death was result of such demands.[33]
Now the question arises that how will court decide the proximity? Any cruelty or event of cruelty can make a long impact on women. So how court decided in this case that there was no proximity. It is clearly evident that till now women are subject to torture and harassment that can be result of dowry or not. If the surveys shows less rate of conviction under Section 498A of IPC then it does not means that all women are abusing this law. Abovementioned cases are example of narrow interpretation of Section 498A, that is why there are fewer rates of convictions. The position of women in India is still not very good. They still need this right to alleviate her position in the society. Even if such laws are misused in that case, they can be amended.
CONCLUSION
It is very much clear that to curb the violence against women, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 was introduced. Section 498A of IPC is one of the products of such amendment. The legislative intent was to curb the menace of dowry death which even Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was not able to stop. Women were subject to harassment within the four walls of their house. It acts as a shield to such women but with the passage of time, women started using this section as weapon to take revenge from her husband and in laws. In thus topic, we have discussed how this law was misused by women and Supreme Court never failed to issue guidelines so that it can be proved as a balance between men and women.
But it is also true that Section 498A of IPC is not always misused by the women, therefore, it is very much important that state as well as individual have to change its perspective regarding its misuse so that the real purpose of the Section would not get devalued. Primary purpose of this section is to recognize any type of violence and to protect women from such violence.
The Law Commission in its 243rd Report on Section 498A of Indian Penal Code also discussed the complaint regarding misuse of the law. The Commission has recommended that the offence can be made compoundable only with the permission of the court and before granting, precautions must be made. However, the commission has recommended that the offence should remain non bailable. The misuse does not mean that we remove the efficacy of the provisions which affect the larger societal interest.
[1] Violence against women, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (Jul. 04, 2019, 12:40 PM), https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women.
[2] Simran sabharwal, All you need to know about Section 498A of the IPC, IPLEADERS (Jul. 04, 2019, 12:47 PM), https://blog.ipleaders.in/need-know-Section-498a-ipc/.
[3] The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
[4] 1988 SCR(1) 1010 (India).
[5] 1986 (92) CRLJ 1510 (India).
[6] The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
[7] Flavia Agnes, Violence Against Women: Review of Recent Enactments, WOMEN STUDIES (Jul. 09, 2019, 12:52 PM), http://www.womenstudies.in/elib/crime_ag_women/ca_violence_against.pdf.
[8] Team DNA, City has nurtured feminist movement: Vidya Bal, Feminist and Social Activist, SYNDICATION DNA, (Jul. 09, 2019, 1:15PM), http://dnasyndication.com/dna/dna_english_news_and_features/City-has-nurtured-feminist-movement_-Vidya-Bal-Feminist-&-social-activist/DNPUN38250.
[9] Madhu Kishwar, Laws against domestic violence: Underused or Abused?, MANUSHI, (Jul. 09, 2019, 1:28PM), www.manushi.in/docs/184-law-against-domestic-violence.pdf.
[10] 1998 Cr. L.J. 4496 (India).
[11] A. S. Bhagwatrao, Historical Background & legislative intent of Section 498 A of IPC, SHODHGANGA (Jul. 12, 2019, 7:18PM), http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/jspui/bitstream/10603/144947/4/chapter%202.1.pdf.
[12] Indian Evidence Act, S. 113B.
[13] Daisy Roy, Top 5 Supreme Court judgment on misuse of 498A, IPLEADERS (Jul. 13, 2019, 2:11 PM), https://blog.ipleaders.in/top-5-supreme-court-judgment-on-misuse-of-498a/.
[14] A. Hashika & M. Kannappam, A critical study on misuse of S. 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, 119, IJPAM, Nov. 2018 at 1143.
[15] Madhu Kishwar, Laws against domestic violence: Underused or Abused?, MANUSHI, (Jul. 14, 2019, 12:20 PM), www.manushi.in/docs/184-law-against-domestic-violence.pdf.
[16] (2014) 8 SCC 273 (India).
[17] 2003 Cr.L.J. 2759 (India).
[18] AIR 2017 SC 3869 (India).
[19] (2018) 10 SCC 443 (India).
[20] Vasundhra, Use & Misuse of S. 498 A, LEGAL SERVICE INDIA (Jul. 16, 2019, 1:39 PM), http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-652-use-and-misuse-of-section-498a.html.
[21] Vasundhra, Use & Misuse of S.498 A, LEGALSERVICEINDIA (Jul. 31, 2019, 6:15 PM), http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-652-use-and-misuse-of-section-498a.html.
[22] supra note 6.
[23] (2000) DMC 628 (India).
[24] (2003) DMC 546 (DB) (India).
[25] II (2004) DMC 124 (India).
[26] II (2001) DMC 658 (India).
[27] Lawwarrior 10, Section 498A IPC – its use and misuse, LEGALLY INDIA (Aug 2, 2019, 4:46PM), https://www.legallyindia.com/views/entry/section-498a-of-ipc-its-use-misuse-html.
[28] I (2003) DMC 287 (India).
[29] II (2003) DMC 461(India).
[30] II (2003) DMC 384 (India).
[31] I (2000) DMC 699 (India).
[32] U. Subba Rao & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, II (2003) DMC 102 (India).
[33] Ravinder Bhagwan Todkar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., I (2004) DMC 791 (DB) (India).
