Latest news with #Section498-A
The Hindu
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
A Court ruling with no room for gender justice
In its judgment, Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal, that was delivered in late July, the Supreme Court of India has effectively endorsed the suspension of the arrest or coercive action under the anti-cruelty law in Section 498-A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC). Apart from being predicated on false premises, the judgment sets a dangerous precedent for both criminal justice and gender equality. In many marriages, women suffer great levels of inequality. Apart from being discriminated against and stereotyped, they also face harassment and violence including torture. To redress violence in the domestic sphere, the Parliament has brought in laws such as Section 498-A in the IPC in 1983. Section 498-A IPC (Section 85 of the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) penalises cruelty against women, by her husband or his relative with imprisonment for three years and a fine. Cruelty is defined wide enough to include dowry harassment and driving the woman to suicide or injury to life or health. The statement of objects of the Amending Act which brought in the law has underlined the need to expand the scope of the law to apply to all kinds of cruelty within marriage. This was done in the wake of a large number of dowry deaths and also noting that cruelty cases 'culminate in suicide by, or murder of, the helpless woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction of the cases involving such cruelty'. Penal legislation such as the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were enacted to operate harmoniously with other laws enacted for violence against women. Therefore, Parliament, as the policymaker, after legislative deliberation and study, has chosen to enact the anti-cruelty law in this particular socio-cultural context. Blanket protection from arrest However, it is without properly appreciating these social realities that the Allahabad High Court directed that no arrest or coercive action must be taken against the accused persons for a 'cool-off' period of two months from the complaint. It also directed the district-level constitution of family welfare committees, to which cases are directed to be transferred to. These directions are now endorsed by the Supreme Court, amounting to a temporary but blanket protection for the accused from arrest or coercive action, when it is permitted by the criminal law. Importantly enough, this was done in an individual dispute without examining in detail the socio-political implications of such a suspension. Nor was the State government heard in elaborate detail — at least going by the top court's judgment — before approving the suspension concerning a central criminal enactment. As a result of the judgment and its binding nature, even when there is overwhelming evidence of this serious crime, no arrests can be made by the police for at least a period of two months after its filing. This move also places a chilling effect on the complainants, who are otherwise already disadvantaged and discouraged from filing police complaints. The safety of the complainant is also severely put to risk. Further, the delay and inaction of the police in a proper investigation of complaints pertaining to 'problems inside marriage' are also legitimised by the judgment. Now, it might be true that family law jurisprudence in the country could improve with alternate dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation, rather than adversarial litigation. There is substance in the general argument that in cases of divorce or custody of children, conciliatory and effective resolution is more desirable than a long adjudicative process. Family cases are also highly sensitive and emotionally charged, which makes them much more suitable for the former than the latter. These aspects do not, however, apply when serious allegations of violence are made which come under the ambit of the penal law. The question of 'misuse' The narrative of 'misuse' of the anti-cruelty law is often heard in popular discourse. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court itself has echoed a similar sentiment in a series of cases. In Preeti Gupta and Anr. vs State Of Jharkhand and Anr. (2010), the Court held that several cases which are not bona fide are filed under this provision. In Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India and Ors. (2005), the Court even said that 'by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed'. In Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar and Anr. (2014), the Court already issued strict guidelines before arrest in anti-cruelty cases. It directed 'the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters' under Section 41 of the earlier Criminal Procedure Code which deals with appearance before police officers. Such guidelines have already rendered police action difficult. Yet, before the Court, apart from individual allegations, there is no concrete empirical data with evidence of any such 'misuse' of the anti-cruelty law. Every time the Court is faced with a dispute, it pertains to individual facts and counter versions. Being a complex social problem, this is also an area where the Court has much less institutional competence to conclude that there is overall 'misuse'. To venture into the terrain of legislative wisdom, therefore, is outside the corners of judicial expertise. One of the arguments often used is the allegedly low conviction rate in such cases, which is around 18% as per the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data in 2022. This means that almost one out of five cases leads to conviction, which is much higher than those in several other offences. Even otherwise, a low conviction rate does not automatically translate into the misuse of the law. In a society such as ours, with close-knit and dominating family relationships, it is attributable to various factors such as the problems in investigation, systemic bias and social and familial pressure on the woman to settle matters. The requirement of family members having to testify in criminal court is a daunting task. Moreover, there is a high burden of proof of 'beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal cases in addition to the difficulty in finding evidence for violence in intimate spaces. Survey findings The NCRB recorded that at least 1,34,506 cases were registered under the law in 2022. The National Family Health Survey-5 has reported the ground reality — that there is a gross under-reporting of violence against women in several States. The rising number of cases, a report by the women's centre Humsafar said, 'may be attributed to growing awareness among women about the law'. Therefore, to draw conclusions of widespread misuse from individual cases 'reflect institutional bias that exists within the criminal justice system' (A comprehensive study on the efficacy of Section 498-A). Now, even if we assume that there are false cases filed under the law, the potential for misuse is inherent in any law. The veracity of the allegation under any criminal complaint can only be determined upon a proper investigation. Now, by selectively suspending the anti-cruelty law, the Court has made the victims of cruelty much more vulnerable than ever under India's justice system. To subject certain criminal provisions to a more rigorous test than the others also has effects on the uniformity and the consistency of the criminal law. The Court itself reiterated in Sushil Kumar Sharma (2005), wherein the constitutional validity of this very law was under challenge, the settled legal principle that misuse of a law is no ground to strike it down. Now, it has acted exactly against this idea, making rigid the possibilities of victims of cruelty to aspire for any meaningful semblance of justice. Thulasi K. Raj is a lawyer at the Supreme Court of India
News18
a day ago
- News18
Complaints About Clothes Or Cooking Don't Amount To ‘Grave Cruelty' Under 498-A, Says Bombay HC
The court also pointed out investigative gaps that police had not questioned neighbours or neutral witnesses, relying solely on statements from the wife's relatives The Bombay High Court has drawn a clear line between marital discord and criminal cruelty, holding that gripes about a wife's attire or cooking skills cannot, by themselves, be treated as 'grave cruelty" under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Delivering the verdict on August 8, the Aurangabad bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A Deshmukh quashed proceedings against a Pune man, his parents, and two sisters, accused of harassing his wife and concealing his mental illness before marriage. The couple's wedding took place in March 2022, the wife's second marriage. Fourteen months later, the relationship collapsed, with the wife alleging verbal abuse, unreasonable demands for gifts, restrictions on her personal communications, and a Rs.15 lakh demand for purchasing a flat. She also claimed she was forced out of the matrimonial home in June 2023. The wife filed the FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. But the court found the wife's version riddled with contradictions. One key piece of evidence turned the case: pre-marriage chats where the husband disclosed he was under treatment, undermining the claim that his health condition had been hidden. 'When the marriage was performed despite this disclosure, it cannot be said she had no knowledge prior to the marriage," the bench noted. On the allegation of cruelty, the judges said making remarks such as the wife not wearing 'proper clothes" or being 'unable to cook food properly" may cause friction but did not rise to the level of serious harassment envisioned by Section 498-A. Such conduct, the court remarked, 'cannot be said to be acts of grave cruelty or harassment". The court also pointed out investigative gaps that police had not questioned neighbours or neutral witnesses, relying solely on statements from the wife's relatives. Allegations, it said, appeared to grow as the relationship deteriorated, making the complaint 'omnibus" and exaggerated. Even the alleged Rs 15 lakh demand seemed questionable. At the time of marriage, the family already owned a flat, a fact known to the wife, raising doubts over whether such a demand was genuinely made. With little independent corroboration and much of the complaint based on subjective grievances, the bench concluded that putting the accused on trial would be 'an abuse of the process of law." It quashed the case in its entirety, ending the criminal proceedings before the Aurangabad Chief Judicial Magistrate. view comments First Published: August 11, 2025, 15:23 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Hindustan Times
SC: Alimony from first marriage irrelevant in dispute with second spouse
MUMBAI: The Supreme Court has ruled recently that alimony received from a previous marriage cannot be considered while deciding matrimonial disputes in a subsequent marriage. SC: Alimony from first marriage irrelevant in dispute with second spouse The case concerned a couple, both previously divorced, who married on July 25, 2015. Their relationship broke down within one year and nine months, with disputes centring on a Mumbai apartment where they had lived. The husband claimed his wife had already received a 'fair settlement' from her earlier divorce. Alleging constant harassment, he said he left the flat to live with his parents and his disabled child in Faridabad, giving up a lucrative private bank job. The wife, however, accused him of intimidation and domestic violence, saying he abandoned her without means to survive. In 2018, she lodged an FIR under Section 498-A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code, prompting criminal proceedings. She had also filed a domestic violence complaint in May 2017 against him and his parents, while he petitioned for divorce in a Delhi court. During mediation, the couple reached a settlement on September 1, 2022: the husband would gift the flat and its parking spaces to her, while she would clear the outstanding loan and maintenance charges. But before the second motion for divorce, the wife withdrew from the agreement, demanding ₹12 crore in permanent alimony in addition to the property. The husband approached the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the 2018 criminal proceedings, arguing the wife had backed out of the settlement to pressure him into a better deal. His counsel, advocate Madhavi Diwan, told the court the flat was worth around ₹4 crore and the parking spaces could generate rental income. The wife's counsel countered that she had no job or income, while the husband remained lucratively employed, owned property worth crores, and ran two businesses. She sought ₹12 crore in alimony plus ownership of the apartment free of encumbrances. Justice K Vinod Chandran, dissolving the marriage, quashed the criminal proceedings against the husband, terming the allegations 'vague'. The court said the wife's earlier alimony was irrelevant, but took into account the husband's responsibility towards his autistic child, her educational qualifications, and the fact that she was gainfully employed. Finding the apartment transfer adequate compensation, the court rejected her ₹12 crore demand and directed the husband to clear all arrears with the housing society and execute a gift deed transferring the flat to her.
News18
3 days ago
- News18
Bombay HC Quashes Woman's Complaint Against Husband: 'Comments On Cooking, Attire Not Cruelty'
The woman alleged that about a month after her marriage in March 2022, she was harassed mentally and physically by her husband and her in-laws. The Bombay High Court on Friday quashed a criminal case against a man and his family filed by his estranged wife, observing that remarks on a wife's attire or cooking skills did not constitute grave cruelty or harassment. 'Making annoying statements that the informant was not wearing proper clothes, was not able to cook food properly, cannot be said to be acts of grave cruelty or harassment," said a bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh. The court further said, 'When the relationship gets strained, it appears that exaggerations are made. When everything was disclosed prior to the marriage and allegations are omnibus or of not so grave for befitting in the concept of cruelty contemplated under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, it would be an abuse of process of law if the applicants are asked to face the trial." The woman alleged that about a month after her marriage in March 2022, she was harassed mentally and physically by her husband and her in-laws. She claimed her husband's mental condition was concealed before marriage and he was undergoing psychological treatment. The complainant also accused her in-laws of insulting her for not bringing gifts, demanding Rs 15 lakh during Diwali for a flat and driving her out of the house in June 2023. The husband and his family moved the High Court to quash the case. The woman and her counsel argued that the acts amounted to cruelty under Section 498A, and alleged a pattern of physical and mental harassment, including monitoring her phone and questioning her character. However, the court said that the allegations were 'omnibus" in nature and lacked corroborative evidence, and that the investigating officer had not even questioned the couple's neighbours. It also observed that the wife was aware of the husband's health condition prior to marriage, based on chat records. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) pertains to cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband or his relatives. It is classified as a cognisable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence. This means that police can arrest the accused without a warrant, bail is not granted as a matter of right, and the case cannot be resolved through a private settlement outside the court. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
NDTV
22-07-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
2-Month Gap Between Case, Arrest In Marriage Cruelty Cases To Stay: Top Court
New Delhi: The Allahabad High Court guidelines that advise going slow with arrest in cases involving matrimonial disputes will stay, the Supreme Court said today while hearing a case where the husband and his father had spent months in jail after the wife filed a slew of false cases against them. The guidelines framed by the High Court will remain in effect and should be implemented by the authorities, the court said. Endorsing the safeguards, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih, said the husband was jailed for 109 days and his father for 103 days as a result of the criminal cases filed by the wife. "What they have suffered cannot be resituated or compensated in any manner" the court said. The woman, who is an IPS officer, has been asked to issue an unconditional public apology, which the court said was just a moral redress. Under the Allahabad High Court's guidelines, no arrest or police action can take place against the accused without a cooling off period after the First Information Report is filed. This period extends to two months and during this, any further issues will be directed to the district's Family Welfare Committee. Every district shall have at least one or more Family Welfare Court comprising at least three members. Only those cases shall be referred to the Family Welfare Committee in which the offence is punishable under Section 498-A (cruelty), along with other sections attracts a sentence of imprisonment of less than 10 years. The guidelines aim to curb the growing tendency among litigants to implicate the husband and his entire family by making sweeping allegations.
