Misuse of provisions against cruelty by husband and his relatives and dowry demands not only results in the suffering of the innocent but also takes away focus from genuine cases of domestic abuse, argues Mahalakshmi Pavani.
—
RECENTLY, Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the High Court of Karnataka underscored a rather critical issue impacting countless families across India: The misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
This decision marks a significant stride towards safeguarding the rights of individuals who are unjustly implicated in false dowry and harassment cases. My observations as an advocate practising for the past three decades are that women frequently weaponise matrimonial laws, which results in cases of genuine victims not getting the kind of serious attention they deserve.
Expressing his disappointment at such a tragic state of affairs regarding the abuse of laws in our country, Ashwani Kumar, former Union minister for law and justice states that: "Every abuse of law tends to diminish the efficacy and validity of that law."
Section 498A of the IPC, which was enacted to protect women from cruelty and harassment by their husbands and in-laws, has lamentably become a double-edged sword.
“Section 498A of the IPC, which was enacted to protect women from cruelty and harassment by their husbands and in-laws, has lamentably become a double-edged sword.
What was once intended to offer a remedy in genuine cases of domestic abuse and dowry-related violence, has now turned into potential for abuse. Its broad and sometimes ambiguous interpretation has led to instances where it is used to target innocent individuals, particularly husbands and their families, leading to unwarranted social stigma, reputational damage, and financial strain.
Addressing this deplorable situation, Justice S.N. Dhingra, former Delhi High Court judge, has accurately stated that: "In the name of doing justice to one gender, we are propagating injustice simultaneously through gender-biased laws."
The recent ruling is a welcome development in this context as it reinforces the need for a balanced and just application of the law. By emphasising the importance of ensuring that legal recourse is not misused for personal vendettas or financial gain, the judgment seeks to protect the rights of both women and men while maintaining the integrity of legal processes.
The judgment highlighted that the complaint focused on alleged infections of the husband's genital areas, which were purportedly akin to sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). This led to claims of mental harassment due to dishonest concealment of health issues, and a breach of trust.
The judgment observed that the complaint's core allegations revolved around the husband's health condition affecting his wife's employment and financial dependency, rather than any concrete evidence of dowry demands or severe cruelty.
It was aptly observed that the reported grievances were minor disputes rather than substantial grounds for legal action, thus underscoring the need for scrutiny of such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions.
The judgment also highlights a crucial point regarding the nature of the alleged dowry. It was noted that the complainant was given 614 grams of silver and 160 grams of gold not as a demand but as a part of her family's tradition, which can be categorised as 'stridhana' rather than a dowry demand.
“This led to claims of mental harassment due to dishonest concealment of health issues, and a breach of trust.
Furthermore, a rather unambiguous interpretation of Section 498A IPC was given, emphasising that this Section encompasses two specific scenarios: one where the accused subjects the woman to cruelty that could drive her to suicide, and, secondly, where the harassment is aimed at coercing her into meeting unlawful demands for property or valuable security.
When the complaint, charge summary, and statements are evaluated against these criteria, it becomes evident that the allegations do not meet the necessary conditions for Section 498A.
In this case, there was no substantial evidence of dowry harassment or cruelty by the husband or his family, thereby undermining the claims and highlighting the importance of adhering to the precise legal definitions to prevent misuse of the law.
As a precedent, the observation that there is a need for careful evaluation of evidence to ensure that legal provisions are applied appropriately and that genuine cases of cruelty and dowry demands are distinguished from baseless claims was made.
In a similar case years ago, in Sushil Kumar Sharma versus Union of India, wherein the constitutionality of Section 498A of the IPC was challenged before the Supreme Court of India in order to prevent its gross misuse and exploitation, Justice Dr Arijit Pasayat observed:
"The object of the provision is the prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive.
"In such cases, the acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to the trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision.
"Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreak personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with.
"Till then, the courts have to take care of the situation within the existing framework. As noted above, the object is to strike at the roots of the dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used as a shield and not as an assassin's weapon.
"If the cry of 'wolf' is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be available when the actual 'wolf' appears. There is no question of the investigating agency and courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that the ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at the truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent.
"There is no scope for any preconceived notion or view. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of a watchdog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations."
With regard to the facts of the present case, the wife claimed that the petitioner had a human papillomavirus (HPV) infection due to rashes on his buttocks. However, after tests at Victoria Hospital and others, including for Hepatitis B, the results showed no signs or history of HPV or other infections.
“It was aptly observed that the reported grievances were minor disputes rather than substantial grounds for legal action, thus underscoring the need for scrutiny of such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions.
Thus, the wife's claim about her husband having a physical issue seemed untrue. Additionally, the wife's assertion that the petitioner ignored communication and never showed interest in bringing her to the US was contradicted by the documents in the petition, which showed that the petitioner was the one who arranged four separate appointments for her visa.
In another similar case, the Supreme Court in Achin Gupta versus State of Haryana held, "If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court.
"The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute."
Further, in Preeti Gupta versus State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court observed the following: "It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motives.
"At the same time, a rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.
"Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint, the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such a complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.
"The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in the majority of these complaints. The tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon.
Also read: Supreme Court's recent decisions on abortion pregnant with semantics, not necessarily justice
"At times, even after the conclusion of a criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.
"The allegations of harassment of the husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
"Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislature. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over-implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.
"The criminal trials lead to immense suffering for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering or ignominy. Unfortunately, a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society.
“When the complaint, charge summary, and statements are evaluated against these criteria, it becomes evident that the allegations do not meet the necessary conditions for Section 498A.
"It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law."
Pertinently, the recent Karnataka High Court judgment elaborated upon the trend of misuse of dowry laws and it was suggested that several amendments must be brought in the newly introduced criminal laws to impede the same.
It was stated that: "In the aforesaid context, we looked into Sections 85 and 86 respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which is to come into force with effect from July 1, 2024 so as to ascertain whether the legislature has seriously looked into the suggestions of this court as made in Preeti Gupta (supra) citing Sections 85 and 86 of the BNS and then he observed that:
"The aforesaid is nothing but verbatim reproduction of Section 498A of the IPC. The only difference is that the Explanation to Section 498A of the IPC is now by way of a separate provision, i.e., Section 86 of the BNS, 2023.
"We request the legislature to look into the issue as highlighted above taking into consideration the pragmatic realities and consider making necessary changes in Sections 85 and 86 respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, before both the new provisions come into force."
It was further reiterated that courts, in general, must examine the full scope of the law and determine whether the complainant's actions constitute a serious misuse and abuse of legal processes.
The court also observed that high courts must carefully and thoroughly review first information reports (FIRs) to determine whether they reveal the essential elements required to establish the offence, as frivolous and malicious cases are registered.
It was held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, high courts are responsible for considering not just the complaint but also all relevant circumstances reflected in the record, and also for careful interpretation of the details.
The court held that the complainant had grossly misused and abused the legal process, initiating criminal proceedings without basis. Such frivolous cases, filed by the wife, consumed considerable judicial time and caused significant social disruption, impacting harmony and happiness in society.
“With regard to the facts of the present case, the wife claimed that the petitioner had a human papillomavirus (HPV) infection due to rashes on his buttocks.
The court further concluded that while this scenario may not apply to every case, still, it is the duty of the court to focus on addressing the frivolous and vexatious litigation that clogs the criminal justice system and delays genuine cases.
Given the facts presented, it is evident that the complainant had abused the legal process. Therefore, in order to give her a taste of her own medicine, the court deemed it appropriate for the husband to have the option to pursue a claim for malicious prosecution or to initiate proceedings under Section 211 of the IPC.
Amidst this judgment, an issue arose with respect to safeguarding the dignity of litigants while protecting against the misuse of laws which is a critical issue yet it does require a delicate balance at the hands of the judiciary. The ultimate goal is to ensure that legal processes are conducted with respect for all parties involved while preventing laws from being weaponised for personal vendettas or unjust gains.
'Litigant dignity' refers to an inherent respect and fairness owed to individuals involved in legal proceedings. The exercise of acceptable limits on safeguarding litigant dignity and protecting against the misuse of laws is fundamental to a just legal system.
Courts are often tasked with upholding this dignity by ensuring that all interactions are handled professionally and that the rights of the parties are preserved.
This includes protecting individuals from undue humiliation, emotional distress, and reputational damage. Measures such as closed court sessions for sensitive cases, confidentiality agreements, non-disclosure of the identities and names of the parties involved and respectful treatment during proceedings are essential in maintaining this respect.
On the other hand, laws must be safeguarded against misuse. This involves preventing legal processes from being used as tools for harassment or personal vendettas.
For instance, frivolous lawsuits or malicious prosecution can undermine the integrity of the legal system and harm innocent individuals. Courts must exercise judicial restraint and adopt strict standards to filter out cases lacking merit, ensuring that legal actions are pursued in good faith. The challenge lies in finding a balance between these two needs.
The present judgment has sparked considerable debate and gained extensive coverage by various media outlets criticising the complainant, portraying her as having harassed her husband with frivolous complaints and subjecting him to numerous medical tests, including for STDs.
In contrast, another opinion has also emerged stating that the judiciary has no power to pass adverse remarks or comments criticising the wrong-doing of any individual— with regards to their conduct of lodging false cases against innocent individuals.
I think that courts must exercise anxious caution in protecting the dignity of litigants while also ensuring that the rights of the accused and the sanctity of the legal framework are not abused by the litigant who may be motivated by ill-will and have the target to waste precious time of the courts.
“After tests at Victoria Hospital and others, including for Hepatitis B, the results showed no signs or history of HPV or other infections.
Ensuring this requires robust judicial oversight, clear procedural guidelines and an unwavering commitment to fairness. Judges play a crucial role in enforcing legal standards and addressing any attempts to exploit legal processes for ulterior motives. By ensuring respectful treatment and preventing legal abuse, the courts uphold both the integrity of the legal process and the rights of those involved.
The judicial reprimand against the complaint for her condemnable act of fallaciously accusing her husband was absolutely justified in my opinion.
However, it was erroneously interpreted by several persons and they misconstrued the intent of the judgment opining that it carries a satirical undertone that goes beyond the scope of the legal findings necessary for the case.
Further, in that position, it is the utmost duty of the judiciary to incorporate such judicial remarks against the complainants of such frivolous cases which can act as a reliable precedent and raise broader concerns and awareness about acts of such litigants who obstruct the judicial process and jeopardise the true essence of justice delivery mechanism.
It had nothing to do with any dangerous or regressive stereotypes about women seeking legal redress in matrimonial disputes. There is not even an iota of a viewpoint that discourages victims from seeking justice.
This judgment is in complete favour of the fact that the legal system should serve as a platform for justice and equality, not silence women's experiences.
Granting the husband liberty to prosecute his wife for malicious prosecution under Section 211 of the IPC does not set any dangerous precedents in the eyes of law and the society altogether because if we review the increase in the number of frivolous litigations to seek revenge against the husband in past decade, definitely there is a dire need for some kind of corrective measures or stringent punishments towards such complainants who deliberately concoct such false stories and fabricate allegations in order to torment, torture and traumatise the lives of their husbands.
This decision could deter such unreliable and deceitful complainants from coming forward, fearing hatred and retaliation from society and legal repercussions.
It has been wrongly perceived that due to the liberty granted to the husband in this case, it could influence ongoing disputes, potentially prejudicing the complainant's position in divorce and domestic violence proceedings.
“The recent Karnataka High Court judgment elaborated upon the trend of misuse of dowry laws and it was suggested that several amendments must be brought in the newly introduced criminal laws to impede the same.
The truth is that in Paragraph 11 of the judgment, it has been clarified that the observations made in the course of the Order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner under Section 482 of the CrPC and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings against any other accused pending before any other fora.
So, no bias or prejudice is being created against the interests of the complainant in any proceedings by effect of this judgment. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the complainant must be, indeed, grateful to the judge as he did not pass any directives for any kind of punishment Order against the wife or payment of any fine or compensation towards the husband.
Also read: Kerala HC denies bail to woman accused of murdering and eating woman as sacrifice to Goddess Kali
“As per a statistical report of the National Crime Records Bureau, the conviction rate in cases of domestic violence and dowry harassment cases is around 34.7 percent.
As per a statistical report of the National Crime Records Bureau, the conviction rate in cases of domestic violence and dowry harassment cases is around 34.7 percent.