India has long grappled with the social evil of dowry, a practice deeply entrenched in its cultural fabric. To address this menace and protect women from dowry-related harassment and violence, Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was enacted. However, over the years, concerns have been raised about the misuse of this provision, leading to wrongful accusations and unjust arrests. Concurrently, dowry deaths continue to plague society, highlighting the persistent challenges in combating this deep-rooted problem. This article delves into the complexities surrounding the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the grim reality of dowry deaths in India.
SECTION 498A IN THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860
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.
MEANING OF SECTION 498A
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was a pivotal addition aimed at protecting the rights and empowerment of women when it was introduced in 1983. Its inclusion signified a significant step in safeguarding women from various forms of cruelty and exploitation within marital relationships. Enacted through the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983, this provision specifically addresses instances where women are subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry, a prevalent issue in Indian society.
The broad definition of ‘cruelty’ within the context of this law encompasses not only physical harm but also mental anguish inflicted upon women. Moreover, it extends to instances where women or their families are coerced into meeting unlawful demands for property or other valuable assets. The amendment to the Indian Penal Code sought to combat the menace of dowry-related deaths and other forms of violence against women within marriage.
The enactment of Section 498A was complemented by the addition of Section 113-A to the Indian Evidence Act, which addresses the presumption regarding the abetment of suicide by a married woman. These legal provisions collectively aim to provide a shield of protection for women facing abuse at the hands of their husbands or relatives.
Under Section 498A, any form of harassment related to dowry is deemed as cruelty, including situations where such harassment leads to a woman’s mental distress or even drives her to contemplate suicide. The law imposes stringent penalties, including imprisonment for up to three years and fines, on those found guilty of subjecting a woman to such cruelty.
It is important to note that offenses under Section 498A are cognizable, non-compoundable, and non-bailable, reflecting the seriousness with which the law addresses crimes against women within the domestic sphere. This provision serves as a crucial tool in combating dowry-related violence and ensuring the safety and well-being of women in India.
INGREDIENTS OF THIS SECTION
Following are the necessary ingredients required to be satisfied:
- The women must be married;
- She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and
- Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by the husband of the woman or by family or by the relatives of her husband.
IN KALIYAPERUMAL V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU: the Court clarified that while cruelty may be a common aspect in offenses under both Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC, they are not mutually inclusive. It was established that although there may be a connection between the offenses under Section 304B, pertaining to dowry death, and those under Section 498A, relating to cruelty towards women, each section delineates distinct offenses.
Section 304B, concerning dowry deaths, does not provide its own definition of cruelty but incorporates the concept of cruelty or harassment outlined in Section 498A. In contrast, Section 498A specifically addresses acts of cruelty towards women, irrespective of whether they result in death. While cruelty is the primary offense under Section 498A, Section 304B deals specifically with dowry deaths, requiring that such deaths occur within seven years of marriage and are related to the giving or receiving of dowry. However, Section 498A does not impose a time frame for the commission of cruelty.
Therefore, while there may be overlap in the elements of cruelty in both sections, each section serves a distinct purpose within the legal framework, with Section 304B focusing on dowry-related deaths and Section 498A addressing acts of cruelty towards women in general.
MISUSE OF SECTION 498A
Women are increasingly misusing this section by levying baseless accusations against their husbands, often with the aim of extorting money or causing emotional harm to the family. This misuse of Section 498A is on the rise, and husbands are frequently targeted by their wives.
Originally intended to safeguard women from cruelty, harassment, and related offenses, Section 498A was introduced into the legal framework with noble intentions. However, investigations into the application of this law have revealed a higher number of acquittals compared to convictions. Consequently, what was initially conceived as a protective measure by lawmakers is now being viewed by the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, as a form of legal terrorism due to its rampant misuse. This misuse undermines the credibility of Section 498A and contributes to its characterization as an anti-male law.
Despite widespread complaints and acknowledgments of substantial misuse by the judiciary, there is a lack of reliable empirical data to ascertain the true extent of the problem.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar:In the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the husband sought anticipatory bail after his wife accused him of dowry demands, leading to her expulsion from their marital home. Despite his application, anticipatory bail was denied, prompting the husband to appeal to the Supreme Court through a special leave petition.
Decision: The Supreme Court noted that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, being a cognizable and non-bailable offense, is frequently misused as a weapon rather than a shield by disgruntled wives. This misuse often results in the harassment and arrest of husbands and their relatives without sufficient evidence. The Court expressed concern over the indiscriminate arrest of elderly grandparents without proper justification.
Consequently, the Court established guidelines for police officers regarding arrests made under Section 498A of the IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It emphasized the importance of ensuring that arrests are based on reasonable grounds and genuine allegations. Additionally, magistrates were cautioned against authorizing detentions casually or mechanically, underscoring the need for careful consideration before granting such orders.
Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam (2009) 13 SCC 330, the wife alleged that she had been subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband, invoking Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The husband refuted all allegations against him.
During the proceedings, the Court referenced the case of S. Hanumantha Rao v. S. Ramani to understand the concept of mental cruelty. Additionally, various other cases such as Mohd. Hoshan v. State of A.P., Raj Rani v. State, and Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India were consulted to comprehend the scope of cruelty under the law.
The Court concluded that to establish “cruelty” under Section 498-A IPC, it must be evaluated within the context of this specific statutory provision, which may differ from interpretations under other laws. It emphasized the need to assess the man’s conduct, considering the gravity of his actions and whether they are likely to drive the woman to contemplate suicide, among other factors. Moreover, it was determined that cruelty must be demonstrated to have occurred continuously or at least in close proximity to the lodging of the complaint. The Court also clarified that minor disagreements or trivial arguments do not constitute “cruelty” under Section 498-A IPC.
In the case of Chandra Bhan v. State, the Court outlined preventive measures to curb the misuse of Section 498-A:
- FIRs should not be routinely filed;
- Police must carefully evaluate complaints before registering FIRs;
- Registration of cases under Section 498-A/406 IPC requires prior authorization from the DCP/Addl. DCP;
- Before registering an FIR, every effort should be made to reconcile the parties. If reconciliation is not possible, steps should be taken to ensure the return of stridhan and dowry articles to the complainant;
- Arrest of primary accused individuals should only occur after a thorough investigation and with prior approval from the ACP/DCP;
- Approval from the DCP must be obtained before arresting collateral accused individuals such as in-laws.
Specific allegations against husband’s relatives
In case of Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, 2022 SC the Court ruled that the relatives of the husband cannot be compelled to face trial unless there are explicit accusations of dowry demands against them. This recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India on Section 498A highlights the significant impact of criminal trials, even when they result in acquittal, on the accused individuals. The Court emphasized the need to discourage such trials due to the lasting harm they inflict on the accused.
Mother-in-law treating daughter-in-law with cruelty
In case of Meera v. State, 2022 SC 31, The Supreme Court ruled that when a woman perpetrates cruelty against another woman, particularly her daughter-in-law, the offense becomes more severe. Additionally, it emphasized that women who inflict cruelty upon others, especially their daughters-in-law, should not receive leniency. The Court underscored the importance of mothers-in-law safeguarding their daughters-in-law rather than subjecting them to harassment.
498A IPC Evidence
Due to the familial or marital connections involved in cases of cruelty under IPC Section 498A, the majority of witnesses are typically relatives of the parties. Consequently, they are considered interested parties, and their statements may vary in reliability. In the recent Supreme Court case of Surendran v. State of Kerala, 2022 SC 621, concerning Section 498A, the Court reaffirmed the established legal principle that evidence provided by related or interested witnesses cannot be automatically dismissed solely on this basis. However, as a precautionary measure, the Court may subject the testimony of such witnesses to closer scrutiny.
Abetment of suicide after Cruelty against women
The most recent Supreme Court ruling on Section 498A, issued in 2022, addressed the correlation between offenses outlined in Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC, as demonstrated in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno v. State, 2022 SC 1387. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity for meticulous scrutiny of the case’s facts and circumstances, along with a thorough assessment of the evidence presented, to determine whether the cruelty and harassment endured by the victim compelled her to resort to ending her life.
Section 498A of IPC and dying declaration as evidence
In the case of Rajaram v. State of M.P., 2022 SC 1733, the victim’s husband appealed against his conviction under IPC Section 498A. The incident involved the victim being admitted to the hospital with severe burns, ultimately resulting in her demise. Two dying declarations were obtained from the victim by the authorities. The first declaration detailed the circumstances of her burning with kerosene oil, with no mention of the appellant, her husband. In contrast, the second declaration included accounts of past acts of cruelty, implicating the husband along with other family members. However, the High Court dismissed the credibility of the second dying declaration, which was the sole evidence against the husband. Consequently, the Court overturned the conviction and sentence for cruelty under Section 498A.
In the case of Rajesh Kumar & Ors v. State of U.P. (2017 SC 821), the husband and other relatives were accused of subjecting the wife to cruelty in connection with dowry demands. Concerns were raised regarding the tendency to indiscriminately involve relatives of the husband in cases under Section 498A, even when they may not have been directly involved in the offense. This prompted a discussion on the need for guidelines to prevent the misuse of Section 498A, IPC.
The Court referenced several cases, including Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand, which highlighted the issue of misuse of Section 498A and the necessity for preventive measures. Additionally, the Court considered reports such as the 243rd Law Commission Report and the 140th report of the Rajya Sabha Committee.
The Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions to address the misuse of Section 498A, IPC, including the establishment of Family Welfare Committees in each district. These committees, comprised of volunteers or social workers, are tasked with reviewing complaints and submitting reports to the relevant authorities. Arrests are not to be made until the committee submits its report. Investigating officers are to be designated and trained specifically for handling complaints under Section 498A and related offenses.
Furthermore, in cases where a settlement is reached, the District and Sessions Judge is responsible for disposing of the proceedings, including the closure of criminal cases related to matrimonial discord. Bail applications are to be decided promptly, with consideration given to protecting the rights of the wife and minor children. Red Corner Notices and impounding of passports are not to be routine measures for persons residing outside India. Cases arising from matrimonial disputes may be clubbed together for a holistic view.
Regarding personal appearance, exemptions may be granted, and appearance via video conferencing may be permitted. However, these directions do not apply to cases involving tangible physical injuries or death. The National Legal Services Authority is tasked with submitting a report on the effectiveness of these measures within six months, with any necessary adjustments to be made by March 31, 2018.
CONCLUSION
The misuse of Section 498A is no longer merely speculation; it has been substantiated. Instances where women have falsely accused their husbands under this provision have come to light, leaving the men without adequate legal protection from such abuse. Across various district court cases, Section 498A of the IPC has been frequently misused, resulting in unresolved cases where husbands are unfairly burdened with providing maintenance to their wives. This expectation that husbands bear all financial responsibilities is unjustified and contributes to the perception of women as manipulators in society.
Section 498A is wielded as a tool by wives to extract money from their husbands, rather than serving its intended purpose of protecting women. The evidence of this misuse has been documented and made public. While Section 498A was originally designed to safeguard women, its application often leads to harassment of husbands and their families by their spouses. This misuse of the law has significant repercussions on society, generating an atmosphere of mistrust and discord within families.
Recognizing the severity of the issue, the Law Commission addressed the abuse of Section 498A in its 243rd report on the IPC. Recommendations were made to make the offence compoundable only with the court’s permission, and precautions were suggested before granting such permission. Despite the abuse, it is crucial to acknowledge that the usefulness of laws impacting the broader public interest should not be undermined. Therefore, while measures should be taken to prevent misuse, it is essential to maintain the integrity of laws aimed at protecting vulnerable individuals in society.
Need to get in touch with our experts? It’s easy!
Contact us today!