Marriages in India are considered a highly revered union, which is believed to unite together not just two individuals, but two families as well. But unfortunately, due to the rise of materialistic mindsets among the people of today, this sacred bond is getting tarnished. Just to fulfil their greed or take revenge or fulfil ulterior motives, some people have fallen to such an extent that they do not hesitate even for a moment to file any frivolous case against someone.
The suicide of a 34-year-old man Atul Subhash in Bengaluru due to alleged harassment by his estranged wife and her family has led to an outrage on social media over the misuse of anti-dowry laws and domestic violence law under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), previously Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Shockingly, a significant chunk of this originates from those laws which were made for the protection of the women who have to face unjust treatment or unreasonable demands from their in-laws or even her husband as well. Although there is a pressing need for such laws, but because of the presence of loopholes accompanied by several other external factors, have raised doubts in the minds of general public as to whether we should actually protect that section of society which is filing such false cases. Due to the actions of a few people, many genuine victims still continue to suffer. Therefore, it is crucial to understand and admit that there exists a problem in our country dowry laws and they have to be amended as soon as possible.
Men face significant challenges in our legal system, particularly in cases of false accusations under Sectin of 85 of the BNS or rape laws. In these instances, men often lack protection and face severe societal judgment and legal repercussions. Additionally, under CrPC 125, husbands are compelled to pay maintenance to estranged wives without ensuring that the wives fulfill their responsibilities. This one-sided approach leads to considerable harassment, with men facing societal scorn, lengthy court proceedings, and even imprisonment for crimes they did not commit.
However, in recent years, as there has been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 85 of the BNS as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.
LOOPHOLES IN THE LAWS
In the year 2005, in a landmark case named Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union of India and Ors., the Supreme Court of India observed the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC as a ‘legal terrorism’. It was said that “by misuse of the provision (Section 498A), a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used as a shield and not an assassin’s weapon”. In the Rajesh Sharma v. State of UP (2017), Supreme Court acknowledged misuse and issued guidelines to prevent arbitrary arrests.
Specifically considering the laws which were made for the protection of women, for example, rape or dowry, they were and till date, because of their wording, affected the other genders adversely. No doubt Article 15(3) of the Indian Constitution allows the State to make special provisions for women, but making special provisions does not in any way mean that the other genders (men and LGBTQ+) are to be neglected. The laws should be made in such a manner that, on one hand, they provide protection to all their citizens, and on the other hand, they prevent its misuse by and upon any other citizen. The initial step to deal with it can be to replace the words ‘women’ and ‘men’ with “people” and ‘wife’ and ‘husband’ with “spouse”, wherever possible.
The biggest example of no strict implementation can be seen in the violation of anti-dowry laws itself. According to some researches, the cases of dowry demand have increased over the year, where before the year 1940, dowry was given in 35-40% of the marriages; this number grew to nearly 90% by the year 1999. These numbers clearly show that the give and take of dowry is being conducted without any fear of law or by using loopholes, like in the form of “presents” (last proviso of Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act).
In 2003, the state of Andhra Pradesh made Section 498A compoundable, which is a major legal provision to deal with dowry related cases, but whenever the same change is demanded at the central level, the foremost argument which is raised is that this will lessen the fear among the culprits and they might force the victim to take back their complaint. This happens because unfortunately, today, a common man does not feel himself safe in front of the police, and many times it is seen that the victim (usually woman’s and/or their family) bribes the police to insert those legal provisions in their chargesheet, which are not at all true, just to harass the opposite party, and on the other side the accused party (usually husband’s and/or their family) bribes the police to delay the process of law. This can be corrected a bit by having a strict check on the working of the police officials.
ARE THERE ANY LEGAL PROTECTION FOR MEN IN INDIA?
Recently, the Delhi High Court had granted divorce to celebrity chef Kunal Kapur on the grounds of “cruelty” by his wife. Chef Kapur had taken a restraining order against his wife as she entered the ‘Masterchef India’ sets and created a ruckus with his son in 2016. The Delhi HC had said, “It is relevant to mention here that within two years of marriage, the appellant has established himself as a Celebrity Chef, which is a reflection of his hard work and determination which would not have been possible had he been one who was dependent on his spouse or in-laws for his necessities.”Article 14 mandates equality before the law, states “everyone equal before the law”. Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on gender and other forms of bias.
WAY AHEAD
Effective implementation is not just to punish the wrongdoer correctly; it must first be to identify who’s the real wrongdoer. There must be no straight-jacket rule or preconceived notion to consider any specific gender guilty right from the beginning of the trial. The Advocate’s prime duty is to protect the interests of their clients, but this should not be stretched to such an extent that the advocates, just for greed of more money, willingly fight a false case or assist their clients in making their case strong by putting those legal provisions which are in reality not required. Legislative reforms, judicial guidelines, and awareness campaigns are essential to curb misuse while maintaining the law’s efficacy for victims. Greater emphasis on evidence-based investigations, gender-neutral laws, and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms can address the issue holistically. A fair and balanced approach will preserve the sanctity of the law and ensure that it fulfils its intended purpose without being weaponized as we don’t want more men to face this tragic misuse faced by Atul Subhash in the matter of section 498A IPC.
Dr.S.Krishnan is an Associate Professor in Seedling School of Law and Governance, Jaipur National University, Jaipur.
Ms. Archana Shukla is an Advocate in Delhi High Court, Delhi.
