Image Source : FILE Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed concern over the rampant use of cruelty law by married women to harass their husbands and in-laws for selfish interests. The concern from the Supreme Court came amid growing demands for justice for 34-year-old Bengaluru techie Atul Subhash, who died by suicide after accusing his former wife of filing false cases against him to extort money.
The Supreme Court flagged the ‘growing tendency to misuse’ laws protecting women from cruelty by their in-laws and said courts must exercise caution while deciding dowry harassment cases to prevent unnecessary harassment of innocent people.
Just before suicide, Atul Subhash recorded an 80-minute video in which he accused his estranged wife Nikita Singhania and her family of slapping multiple cases on him and his family to extort money from them. Moreover Atul criticised the justice system in his 24-page suicide note.
While hearing a case (Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others vs State of Telangana and Another), the Supreme Court said Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which penalises cruelty by husbands and their relatives against married women, was being misused.
While hearing the matter, the top court bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh noted that sometimes the provision, originally intended to protect women from domestic violence and harassment, was being exploited by some women to force her husband and his family to comply with their “unreasonable demands”.
The Supreme Court made the observations while dismissing the cruelty and dowry cases filed by the wife against her husband and in-laws. The plea was filed by the husband and his family members challenging the Telangana High Court’s refusal to dismiss the case. The wife had filed the cases after her husband sought a divorce. After reviewing the arguments, the Supreme Court concluded that the wife had filed the cases to settle personal grievances and was misusing legal provisions that were intended to protect her.
Earlier in the day, Delhi-based Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa spoke on the Bengaluru techie suicide case citing possible misuse of Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and said that the case should be taken into serious consideration as it affects the social fabric of our society.
The senior advocate said that Section 498 A is being misused and has become a has become a ‘tool for extorting money.’
Speaking to ANI, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa said, “I think it’s a very serious matter. Being a criminal lawyer for now over three decades, I have seen how 498 A has been misused by our own people–legal fraternity, police machinery, and the disgruntled women who have filed cases. This incident has triggered the controversy and has brought the issue before the people of the country. It should be taken very seriously because the misuse of 498 A should be curbed because it affects the social fabric of our society.”
“There are false allegations that are not only filed against the husband but also — relative, the in-laws and others, they are all implicated in this and most of them are false. I am not saying that there are no genuine cases, there are but a majority of them are filed to persuade the husband to settle the matter through some money,” said the advocate.
Providing suggestions to curb the misuse of Section 498 A, the advocate said, “Make 498 A bailable, make it gender-neutral—that if the wife has harassed the husband, he should also be able to file a complaint against them and mediation in all cases— that is before you register the cases, make both of parties sit together and accountability that if the case is false, they should be arrested.”
Meanwhile, Manan Kumar Mishra, Advocate and Chairman, Bar Council Of India, also spoke on the Bengaluru techie suicide case and said, “It is very unfortunate. There should be action on this. The 498 A is being misused a lot these days, and the number of genuine cases in this has gone down. the courts have become liberal but there is still a need for changes in this, like an inquiry should be done before filing a first information report.”
