498A: How to Harass Husbands in India. Part - 1

It is widely assumed that it is a male-dominated society in India.  

Notwithstanding, the Indian laws are totally female-dominated.

India was always supposed to have a male-dominated society. But, with certain laws under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), it does not seem to be the case anymore. The Indian Constitution has handed the fundamental right “Right to Equality” to all citizens of India.

Photo Courtesy: Law Is Greek

Then, why do we have the marital laws enforced in such a way that only the wife and her family gets benefitted from them, while the husband and his family is subjected to all the harassment in the world? A typical law of such nature is: If a married woman commits suicide, the husband and his parents will be immediately arrested and subjected to imprisonment without any investigation, presuming it’s a case of dowry harassment.

Until the investigation is completed, they will have to remain in prison. Whereas, if a married man commits suicide, the wife will be subjected to 50% of the husband’s property.

Is this what we call “equality”?

 

Photo Courtesy: Legal Fighter

Another law that is being highly misused is “The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005”. This law assumes that all victims of domestic violence are women and it does not give a man a chance to complain or seek justice if he is being harassed or abused by his wife. It also assumes that wives are always honest and truthful. Therefore, proof and evidence to support the allegations of abuse are not required. Leave the “Right to Equality”, where is the “Right to Justice” for the husbands?

Passed by the Indian Parliament in 1983, Indian Penal Code Section 498A, is a criminal law (not a civil law), which is defined as follows: “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.

The offence is Cognizable, non-compoundable, and non-bailable.”

Photo Courtesy: Stand Up For A Cause

Do we have a similar law which defines that if a woman subjects his husband to cruelty or mental harassment, then she and her family will be subjected to imprisonment? Where is the so-called “equality” then?

Example Case 1: Verdict of a Bail Application in July 2005

Bail Application No. xxxx/2005

*

1. Petitioner, husband of Rupa (name changed), is an accused in FIR No. xxx/05 under Section 498A/307/34 IPC. He is in judicial custody since 8.5.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner presses for bail stating that Rupa consumed some poisonous substance and it was the petitioner who took Rupa to M.B.Hospital, Poothkalan, Delhi and Rupa was discharged at the said hospital on the same date after some treatment. Counsel states that this shows that condition of Rupa was not serious. Counsel further states that the possibility of Rupa consuming something out of haste or in a state of depression cannot be ruled out.

2. FIR has been registered pursuant to a statement of Rupa in which she has alleged dowry harassment at the hands of her husband. It is to be noted that father-in-law and mother-in-law as also the other members of in-laws family are residing in the same house, but Rupa has not implicated any other family member except her 'Nandoi'. In her statement, Rupa has categorically stated that the petitioner under threat of shooting her forced her to eat some tablets. She refused. At that stage, her 'Nandoi' joined and her husband forcibly administered some tablets to her and her 'Nandoi' gave a glass of water to her husband and her husband forced water into her gullet.

3. Record of M.B. Hospital, Poothkhurd, Delhi shows that Rupa was taken at her mother on her own responsibility to Maharaja Uggersain Hospital. Record does not show that Rupa was discharged by M.B.Hospital, Poothkhurd, Delhi.

4. Counsel for the State submits that people are generally unhappy with the Government hospitals and probably for this reason, mother of Rupa took her to a private hospital.

5. In any case, contention of the petitioner that Rupa was discharged on the same day from M.B.Hospital is contrary to the medical records.

6. I have perused the FIR. Rupa has only implicated her husband as the person demanding dowry. On the particular incident she has also named her Nandoi. Her statement appears to be truthful as she has not implicated any other family member of her in-laws, a general trend noticed by this Court in most complaints by the aggrieved wives.

7. Considering the statement of Rupa, the manner in which the offence is stated to have been committed, the pious relationship which the petitioner expected is to have with his wife, breach of trust and safety which the wife could see in her husband's house, at this stage, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail. Dismissed.

**One can easily see the grounds on which the bail was dismissed. If the wife has not accused anyone except her Nandoi, then does that logically imply that her husband and Nandoi were truly the criminals?

What if it was just the first stepping stone for the wife who was inclined to leave the husband’s house at any cost, for some extra-marital reasons? What if she just wanted to punish them for any unforeseeable reason?

How can she be taken to another hospital without getting released from M.B. Hospital? Are the medical records real?

Will anyone investigate into the facts, rather than blindly believing in what a woman has to say!!!

It was always understood that women constitute the “weaker” section of the society. But, does that mean that in each and every field, we give priority and a proper hearing to what a wife has to say, and believe her without listening to the husband or his family? Over the past 2 years, we have seen an exponential rise in such cases, all over the country.

... To be continued