A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court, claiming that some women are misusing laws meant for their protection, such as the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Domestic Violence Act. The petition argues that these laws are unfair to men and that false complaints are being used to harass them. A Supreme Court bench, including Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, will hear the case on Monday, which could impact gender-based legal protections in India.
The Supreme Court Today (Jan 24) sharply criticized a man convicted under Section 498A IPC for torturing his wife over dowry and neglecting his daughters. Justice Surya Kant questioned his character, saying, “What kind of a man you are if you don’t even care for your daughters?” The Court offered relief only if he agreed to transfer agricultural land to his daughters. Convicted in 2015, his sentence was partially reduced in 2024, but the case continues to highlight serious issues of cruelty and neglect.
After almost a decade of hard work and waiting (9 years and 10 months to be exact), a man achieved a state government job with a merit rank of 68. However, despite his efforts and success, the state government refused to issue him an appointment letter. The reason? His wife had filed a 498A case against him two years earlier. In 2013, the husband passed a merit-based exam when there were no criminal cases against him. However, for reasons unknown, the state government delayed his recruitment process for nearly 9 years.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a wife’s false 498A complaint against her husband to “correct his behavior” constitutes cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Upholding the family court’s divorce decision, the Court emphasized that such actions erode trust and harmony, making the marriage unsustainable. The wife admitted to misusing legal proceedings, which led to the marriage’s dissolution.
Misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) took center stage in a contentious ruling by the Supreme Court of India in X v. Telangana State and Another (2024 INSC 953), delivered at the year’s end. The judgment sparked debate with its observations, suggesting that some wives exploit this provision as a tool for personal vendetta against their husbands and their families.
Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold someone guilty of the offence of abetting suicide, and there must be clear evidence of direct or indirect incitement, the Supreme Court has said. The observations came from a bench of justices Vikram Nath and P B Varale which delivered its verdict on an appeal challenging a Gujarat High Court order which refused to discharge a woman’s husband and her two in-laws for allegedly harassing her and driving her to suicide. The case, registered in 2021, involved accusations under sections 498A (cruelty to a married woman) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 306 carries a penalty of up to ten years of imprisonment and a fine.
The Supreme Court warned against the misuse of the law in marital dispute cases lodged by women against their husbands and families, saying that it cannot be used as a “tool to unleash personal vendetta”. A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh on Tuesday (Dec 10) made the observation while setting aside a cruelty case filed against a man and his family under Section 498(A), which the Telangana High Court had refused to dismiss earlier.
Pradipsingh Murlidharsingh Thakur, initially sentenced to death for murdering his pregnant wife, had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment by the Bombay High Court, which determined the case wasn’t among the “rarest of the rare.” The court later directed the review of his eligibility for remission, despite state opposition based on his police status.
The Supreme Court Yesterday (Oct 21) noted that the tendency of over implication is reflected in a large number of cases filed alleging offence under Section 498A IPC and asked the Courts to be cautious about the same. The Court acquitted a man accused under Section 498A IPC while noting that only because he is the husband of guilty sister in law cannot be a ground to hold him guilty under the said offence in the absence of any specific material. The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal against the decision of the High Court which partly allowed appellant’s appeal whereunder his conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was confirmed.
The Patna High Court ruled that derogatory terms like “Bhoot” and “Pisach” directed at a wife do not always constitute ‘cruelty’ under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Despite conviction by lower courts, the High Court overturned the decision due to lack of specific evidence and affirmed its authority to rectify miscarriages of justice.