Misuse

8/6/2017 Section 498A I.P.C.
- Its Use & Misuse - Experts & Views
Experts & Views

25 February 2011
An estimated 28-minute read
Section 498A I.P.C.- Its Use &

Misuse
by lawwarrior10
Email Facebook Tweet Linked-in
Sec-498 A I.P.C. Its Use And Misuse
Introduction:
To start with rst we have to look that what this word marriage means. Marriage is the
voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. It is
a social institution where husband has the responsibility to take care and maintain his
wife. He cannot neglect his duties. But on this great institution a stigma called dowry
still exists. Women are ill-treated, harassed, killed, divorced for the simple reason that
they didnt brought dowry.
For safeguarding the interest of woman against the interest of woman against
the cruelty they face behind the four walls of their matrimonial home, the Indian Penal
Code,1860(herein after referred to as I.P.C.) was amended in 1983 and inserted S.498A
which deals with Matrimonial Cruelty to a woman.
Matrimonial Cruelty in India is a cognizable, non bailable and non

compoundable o ence. It is de ned in Chapter XXA of I.P.C. under Sec. 498A as:
http://www.legallyindia.com/views/entry/section-498a-of-ipc-its-use-misuse-html 1/17
8/6/2017 Section 498A I.P.C.- Its Use & Misuse - Experts & Views
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 her to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to a ne.
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 demands for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such
demand.[1]
The section was enacted to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It

was introduced in the code by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 (Act 46
of 1983). By the same Act section 113-A has been added to the Indian
Evidence Act to raise presumption regarding abetment of suicide by married
woman. The main objective of section 498-A of I.P.C is to protect a woman
who is being harassed by her husband or relatives of husband.
Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act[2], reads as follows:

Sec. 113-A, Presumption as to dowry death- When the question is whether a
person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon
before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty
or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court
shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation- For the purpose of this section dowry death shall have the same
meaning as in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
The object for which section 498A IPC was introduced is amply re ected in
the Statement of Objects and Reasons while enacting Criminal Law (Second
Amendment) Act No. 46 of 1983. As clearly stated therein the increase in
number of dowry deaths is a matter of serious concern. The extent of the evil
has been commented upon by the Joint Committee of the Houses to examine
the work of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In some of cases, cruelty of the
husband and the relatives of the husband which culminate in suicide by or
murder of the helpless woman concerned, which constitute only a small
fraction involving such cruelty. Therefore, it was proposed to amend IPC, the
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (in short the Cr.P.C) and the Evidence Act
suitably to deal e ectively not only with cases of dowry deaths but also cases
of cruelty to married women by the husband, in- laws and relatives. The
avowed object is to combat the menace of dowry death and cruelty[3].
The act of harassment would amount to cruelty for the purpose of this
section. Drinking and late coming habits of the husband coupled with beating
and demanding dowry have been taken to amount to cruelty within the
meaning of this section, but this section has been held not to include a
husband who merely drinks as a matter of routine and comes home late[4]. In
a case before Supreme Court it was observed that this section has given a
new dimension to the concept of cruelty for the purposes of matrimonial
remedies and that the type of conduct described here would be relevant for
proving cruelty.
Meaning of Cruelty:
It was held in Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu[5], that cruelty is a
common essential in o ences under both the sections 304B and 498A of IPC.
The two sections are not mutually inclusive but both are distinct o ences and
persons acquitted under section 304B for the o ence of dowry death can be
convicted for an o ence under sec.498A of IPC. The meaning of cruelty is
given in explanation to section 498A. Section 304B does not contain its
meaning but the meaning of cruelty or harassment as given in section 498-A
applies in section 304-B as well. Under section 498-A of IPC cruelty by itself
amounts to an o ence whereas under section 304-B the o ence is of dowry
death and the death must have occurred during the course of seven years of
marriage. But no such period is mentioned in section 498-A.
In the case of Inder Raj Malik vs. Sunita Malik[6] , it was held that the word
cruelty is de ned in the explanation which inter alia says that harassment of a
woman with a view to coerce her or any related persons to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or any valuable security is cruelty.
Kinds of cruelty covered under this section includes following:
(a) Cruelty by vexatious litigation
(b) Cruelty by deprivation and wasteful habits
(c) Cruelty by persistent demand
(d) Cruelty by extra-marital relations
(e) Harassment for non-dowry demand
(f) Cruelty by non-acceptance of baby girl
(g) Cruelty by false attacks on chastity
(h) Taking away children
The presumption of cruelty within the meaning of section 113-A, Evidence

Act,1872 also arose making the husband guilty of abetment of suicide within
the meaning of section 306 where the husband had illicit relationship with
another woman and used to beat his wife making it a persistent cruelty within
the meaning of Explanation (a) of section 498-A.
Constitution Validity of Section 498-A

In Inder Raj Malik and others vs. Mrs. Sumita Malik[7], it was contended that
this section is ultra vires Article 14 and Article 20 (2) of the Constitution. There
is the Dowry Prohibition Act which also deals with similar types of cases;
therefore, both statutes together create a situation commonly known as double
jeopardy. But Delhi High Court negatives this contention and held that this
section does not create situation for double jeopardy. Section 498-A is
distinguishable from section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act because in the
latter mere demand of dowry is punishable and existence of element of
cruelty is not necessary, whereas section 498-A deals with aggravated form of
the o ence. It punishes such demands of property or valuable security from
the wife or her relatives as are coupled with cruelty to her. Hence a person
can be prosecuted in respect of both the o ences punishable under section 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act and this section.
This section gives wide discretion to the courts in the matters of interpretation
of the words occurring in the laws and also in matters of awarding
punishment. This provision is not ultra vires. It does not confer arbitrary powers
on courts.
In the leading case of Wazir Chand vs. State of Haryana [8], involving the
death by burning of a newly married woman, the circumstances did not
establish either murder or an abetted suicide and thus in-laws escaped the
jaws of section 300 and 306, but they were caught in the web of this newly
enacted section for prevention of harassment for dowry. Not to speak of the
things they are persistently demanding from the girls side, the fact that a
large number of articles were taken by her father after her death from her
matrimonial abode showed that there was pressure being exerted on-in laws
and continued to be exerted till death for more money and articles.
With the rise in modernisation, education, nancial security and the new found
independence the radical feminist has made 498A a weapon in her hands. Many a
hapless husbands and in laws have become victims of their vengeful daughter-in-laws.
Most cases where Sec 498A is invoked turn out to be false (as repeatedly accepted by
High Courts and Supreme Court in India) as they are mere blackmail attempts by the
wife (or her close relatives) when faced with a strained marriage. In most cases 498A
complaint is followed by the demand of huge amount of money (extortion) to settle the
case out of the court.
Sec 498A and the Allegation of Misuse:

In the last 20 years of criminal law reform a common argument made against
laws relating to violence against women in India has been that women misuse
these laws. The police, civil society, politicians and even judges of the High
Courts and Supreme Court have o ered these arguments of the "misuse' of
laws vehemently. The allegation of misuse is made particularly against Sec
498A of the IPC and against the o ence of dowry death in Sec 304B. One
such view was expressed by former Justice K T Thomas in his article titled
'Women and the Law', which appeared in The Hindu.21 The 2003 Malimath
Committee report on reforms in the criminal justice system also notes,
signi cantly, that there is a "general complaint" that Sec 498A of the IPC is
subject to gross misuse; it uses this as justi cation to suggest an amendment
to the provision, but provides no data to indicate how frequently the section is
being misused. It is important therefore that such "arguments" are responded
to, so as to put forth a clearer picture of the present factual status of the
e ect of several criminal laws enacted to protect women.
Domestic violence and abuse by spouses and family members are complex
behaviours and the social organisation of courts, the police and legal cultures
systematically tend to devalue domestic violence cases. Sec 498A was
introduced in the IPC in 1983 and the reforms of the past 20 years have not
been adequately evaluated at all by the government with respect to their
deterrence goals, despite the institutionalization of law and policy to criminalise
domestic violence. A program of research and development is urgently
required to advance the current state of knowledge on the e ects of legal
sanctions on domestic violence. The narrow or perhaps almost negligible study
done by law enforcement agencies about the deterrent e ects of legal
sanctions for domestic violence stands in high contrast with the extensive
e orts of activists, victim advocates and criminal justice practitioners in
mobilising law and shaping policy to stop domestic violence. It is important to
do these studies to correct the general misconceptions that women are
misusing the law by ling false cases against their husbands and in-laws in
order to harass them and get them convicted. The perspective of the state
and its agencies needs to change from that of protecting the husbands and
in-laws against potential "misuse" of the laws of domestic violence to that of
implementing their real purpose to recognise that such violence is a crime
and protect women who have the courage to le complaints against their
abusers.
Article 15 of Indian Constitution

Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion,
race, caste, sex or place of birth. However, it allows special provisions for
women and children. Article 21A provides for free and compulsory education to
all children from the ages of six to 14 years. Article 24 prohibits employment
of children below 14 years in mines, factories or any other hazardous
employment. The court also took note of Article 14 guaranteeing equality, and
Article 21 providing that a person cannot be deprived of life and liberty except
according to procedure established by the law. Similarly, Article 23 prohibiting
human tra cking and forced labour was also referred to in the courts
judgment.
Moving away from fundamental rights to the directive principles, the court
pressed into service provisions relating to the health of women and children.
Article 39(f) directs the State to ensure that children are given opportunities
and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and
dignity, and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and
moral and material abandonment. Article 42 directs the State to make
provisions for just and humane conditions of work, and maternity beliefs. Article
45 stipulates that the State shall provide early childhood care and education
for all children until the age of six. Article 47 lays down the raising of level of
nutrition and standard of living of people, and improvement of public health as
a primary duty of the State.
This section tries to maintain that every married woman needs to be given due
respect and treated with care. It reinforces the fact that a woman is not a toy to be
played with, to be thrown away at ones whims and fancies and treated as inferior to
any other. It inherently asks for husbands to treat their wives well and not misbehave or
demand unjustly which in a way sends forth a message that a woman is a commodity
for sale.
What section 498A IPC tries to do is prevent and punish the above act and re-assert a
womans
right to live a peaceful and happy life.
Use of Section 498 A by Indian Courts:
Indian Courts had been using this provision to safeguard the women from facing the
cruelty faced by them at their matrimonial home.
9 out of 10 of the cases are always related to dowry, wherein the woman is
continuously threatened for want of more money and property which if remains
unful lled , the married woman is tortured, threatened, abused- both physically and
verbally and harassed. Like in the case of Ram Kishan Jain &Ors v State of Madhya
Pradesh[9] due to insu ciency of dowry demands the woman was administered
calmpose tablets and thereafter she even cut the arteries of both her hands.
Sometimes, dowry may not be the cause but the woman for several reasons like her
complexion or family status is tortured to death.
In the case of Surajmal Banthia & Anr. v. State of West Bengal[10], the deceased was
ill-treated and tortured for several days and even not given food several times. Her
father- in-law also misbehaved with her quite often. This is the treatment that several
young brides face when they move out of their parents home and into the house of
her in-laws. It is the duty of the court to prevent any of these abusers from escaping.
The increasing rate of bride burning for want of more dowry and brutal torture of
young wives, together with a clear escape of the abuser is a clear indication that the
court has not taken any strong measures for the implementation of S. 498A IPC
properly.
As stated earlier many a times this victim turns into the abuser and is clearly not
wronged but
instead wrongs the husband and his family for no fault of theirs. Several cases show
that the married woman takes advantage of the section and sends the respondents to
jail under the ambit of this section.
Many women rights groups justify the abuse of this section as being a common feature
with all
other laws and that also the ratio of false cases to that of true ones as being very low.
But this still does not change the truth that there is slowly a rise in the abuse of
S.498A IPC.
In many judgments, the court has not considered mental cruelty caused to the woman
but has
concentrated only on any sign of physical cruelty. If evidence does not show that the
woman was
physically harassed, then the court does not look into the case. What the court does is
call the
woman hyper- sensitive[11] or of low tolerance level and having an unstable mind[12].
Also S.498A IPC does not only deal with dowry deaths but also any willful conduct on
part of the husband which causes harm to the wifes life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical).To prove that cruelty was caused under Explanation a) of S.498A IPC
it is not important to show or put forth that the woman was beaten up- abusing her
verbally, denying her conjugal rights or even not speaking to her properly[13] would fall
into the ambit of mental cruelty.
Showing any mercy to abusers or giving them the bene t of doubt when some proof
to torture at their hands is present is completely wrong. Like in the case of Ashok Batra
& Ors v State[14]even though letters of the deceased stating that harassment had taken
place was present, not treating them as strong evidence and giving the appellants a
bene t of doubt without ordering for a further investigation into the matter is wrong.
The judges have in several instances made a very narrow interpretation of this section,
considering it to be only cruelty in relation to unlawful demands or dowry demands. In
a particular case, the court went to the extent of stating that merely because her in-
laws or husband were to chastise the woman for improper or immoral conduct, it does
not necessarily amount to cruelty.[15] This act of chastising the woman clearly amounts
to mental cruelty, something that the court apparently failed to notice. Here, considering
the woman to be a hyper- sensitive woman not used to usual wear and tear of social
life is completely erroneous.
In the case of Bomma Ilaiah v State of AP[16] the husband of the complainant tortured
the woman
physically by forcing his wife to have sexual intercourse with him. He inserted his
ngers and a stick in her vagina, causing severe pains and bleeding but the court
found the husband of this
Woman guilty only under S. 325 IPC and not S, 498A IPC. Why? Her life both physically
and
Mentally was at risk. Didnt the court notice this?
The court has in another case not punished the guilty under S.498A IPC even though
medical
Reports clearly showed that the death was homicidal by throttling. This was simply
because
According to the court, even though there were dowry demands in the past, the court
felt that
Proximity of the death to be caused due to such a demand was unlikely[17]. Who
decides this
Proximity? The cause and its e ect on the womans health or life may be profound and
even cause her mental unrest at a later stage.
While on the on hand, womens emancipation is the need of the hour and prevention
of ever
increasing dowry deaths and harassment needs to be stopped, it is also clearly noticed
that women today are still tortured and often the court, being the ultimate savior also
does not come to the rescue to protect these women.
Misuse of Section 498 A in Modern World:
A violation of this section, its goals and its aims is on the rise with the woman
frivolously making false allegations against their husbands with the purpose of getting
rid of them or simply hurting the family.
The abuse of this section is rapidly increasing and the women often well- educated
know that this
section is both cognizable and non-bailable and impromptu works on the complaint of
the woman and placing the man behind bars.
Like in the case of Savitri Devi v Ramesh Chand & Ors[18], the court held clearly that
there was a
misuse and exploitation of the provisions to such an extent that it was hitting at the
foundation of
marriage itself and proved to be not so good for health of society at large. The court
believed that
authorities and lawmakers had to review the situation and legal provisions to prevent
such from
taking place.
This section was made keeping in mind protection of the married woman from
unscrupulous
husbands but is clearly misused by few women and again this is strictly condemned in
Saritha v R. Ramachandran[19]where the court did notice that the reverse trend and
asked the law Commission and Parliament to make the o ence a non-cognizable and
bailable one. It is been a duty of the court to condemn wrongdoings and protect the
victim but what happens when the victim turns into the abuser? What remedy does the
husband have here?
On this ground, the woman gets to divorce her husband and re-marry or even gain
money in the
form of compensation.
Many women rights groups go against the idea of making the o ence a non-cognizable
and
bailable one thinking that this gives the accused a chance to escape conviction. But
what this would do is that it would give a fair chance to the man and above all help
meet the ends of justice. Justice must protect the weaker and ensure that the wronged
is given a chance to claim back his/her due.
When women accuse their husbands under S.498A IPC by making the o ence non-
bailable and
cognizable , if the man is innocent he does not get a chance quickly to get justice and
justice
delayed is justice denied. Therefore, the lawmakers must suggest some way of making
this section non-biased to any individual such that the guilty is punished and the
person wronged is given justice.
The position of the women in India is still bad. They still need rights to alleviate
themselves in
society but many a times fail to notice others rights as long as their rights are ensured.
The
educated woman of today must agree with the mantra of equality and demand the
same but the
trend is slowly getting reversed. Women are taking due advantage of the fact that they
are referred to as the weaker sex and on the foundation of rights ensured to them are
violating others rights.
Recent Judgements:
Indian Courts in their recent judgements have looked into the matter of misuse of
Sec.-498A I.P.C. As this Section provides that when an F.I.R. is lodged all the family
members of the husband can be roped in. In their judicial observations and remarks,
the courts have expressed deep anguish over this law. Here are some recent judicial
observations.
1990 Punjab and Haryana High court observed in Jasbir Kaur vs. State of Haryana[20],
case as:
It is known that an estranged wife will go to any extent to rope in as many relatives
of the husband as possible in a desperate e ort to salvage whatever remains of an
estranged marriage.
In Kanaraj vs. State of Punjab[21], the apex court observed as:
for the fault of the husband the in-laws or other relatives cannot in all cases be held
to be involved. The acts attributed to such persons have to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and they cannot be held responsible by mere conjectures and
implications. The tendency to rope in relatives of the husband as accused has to be
curbed
Karnataka High Court, in the case of State Vs. Srikanth[22], observed as:
Roping in of the whole of the family including brothers and sisters-in-law has to be
depreciated unless there is a speci c material against these persons, it is down right on
the part of the police to include the whole of the family as accused
Supreme Court, In Mohd. Hoshan vs. State of A.P.[23] case, observed as:
Whether one spouse has been guilt of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of
fact. The impact of complaints, accusation or taunts on a person amounting to cruelty
depends on various factors like the sensitivity of the victim concerned, the social
background, the environment, education etc. Further, mental cruelty varies from person
to person depending on the intensity of the sensitivity, degree of courage and
endurance to withstand such cruelty. Each case has to be decided on its own facts
whether mental cruelty is made out
Supreme Court, in a relatively recent case, Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and
others[24], observed as:
The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly
contented by the petitioner that many instances have come to light where the
complaints are not bona de and have been led with oblique motive. In such cases
acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy su ered during
and prior to 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 wreck personal vendetta or unleash
harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to nd 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 frame work.
But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is
intended to be used a shield and not an assassins weapon. If 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 investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with
the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to
dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of
every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent.
There is no scope for any pre-conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the
petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumptions that
the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is
too wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn
which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies
and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their e ort
to see that an innocent person is not made to su er on account of unfounded,
baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally undisputable that in many cases no
direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While
dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be
kept in view.
Conclusion:
The Court and Legislature have to make changes if the laws of matrimonial cruelty are
to be of any deterrence. Looking into the recent observations and the increase in
the misuse of this Section, there should be certain amendments which should be
brought up in this law:
1. Role of Women NGOs: These organizations should investigate complaint properly

without any bias towards the woman keeping in mind that the law is being misused
largely to harass more women in husbands family. They should not encourage any
woman to le a criminal case against her in-laws for trivial matters. Foreign Women
Organizations should also take responsibility of not allowing false complaint to be
registered against NRIs just to harass and extort huge amount of money from them.
These organizations should also conduct survey/research on the misuse of the act and
should educate people about its consequences. If these organizations are found to be
assisting in ling false complaints, then they should be made liable for prosecution in
the country where they are functioning.
2. Family Counselling Centres: Numerous cases of men being harassed by wife or/and
in-laws have come to light from di erent parts of the country. As of now there is no
organization, which can really help these harassed men and his family members, to
listen their side of the story and put their point of view in front of the government.
Need of the hour is to create family counseling centers across the country to help
those aggrieved families.
3. Time bound Investigation and Trial: A speedy trial of 498(a) cases will not only
ensure justice for the innocents that have been implicated in false charges, it will also
lead to prompt redressal of the grievances of real dowry victims .The reduction in false
cases will also reduce the burden on judiciary and expedite the processing of real
cases.
4. De nition of Mental Cruelty: Mental cruelty has been vaguely de ned in the act,
which leaves scope of misuse. This should be clearly elaborated to remove loopholes in
the law. There should be provision for men also to le a case for mental cruelty by his
wife.
5. Investigation by Civil authorities: The investigation into these o ences be carried

out by civil authorities and only after his/her nding as to the commission of the
o ence, cognizance should be taken. The government should create awareness among
o cers about its misuse.
6. Bailable: The main reason of 498a being misused to harass innocent is its non-
bailable nature. This section should be made bailable to prevent innocent old parents,
pregnant sisters, and school going children from languishing in custody for weeks
without any fault of them.
7. Compoundable: Once FIR has been registered it becomes impossible to withdraw

the case even if wife realizes that she has done a blunder and wants to come back to
her matrimonial home. To save institution of marriage this should be made
compoundable. Moreover, in the scenario where the couple decides to end the marriage
by mutual divorce, continuation of criminal proceedings hamper their life.
8. Arrest Warrants: Arrest warrant should be issued only against the main accused and
only after cognizance has been taken. Husband family members should not be arrested.
9. Penalty for making false accusation: Whenever any court comes to the conclusion
that the allegations made regarding commission of o ence under section 498a IPC are
unfound, stringent action should be taken against persons making the allegations. This
would discourage persons from coming to courts with unclean hands and ulterior
motives. Criminal charges should be brought against all authorities that are collaborating
with falsely accusing women and their parental families.
10. Court Proceedings: Physical appearance of the accused on hearing should be

waved or kept low to avoid hassles in appearing to the court, especially for NRIs. The
court should not ask to surrender passport of the husband and his family which could
cost job of the husband and his family members.
11. Registration of Marriage and Gifts Exchanged: The registration of marriages should
be made compulsory along with the requirement that the couple make a joint
declaration regarding the gifts exchanged during marriage.
12. Punish Dowry Givers: If the complainant admits giving dowry in the complaint, the
courts should take cognizance of the same and initiate proceedings against them under
the relevant sections of the Dowry Prohibition Act
13. Penalize corrupt Investigation O cers: If it is apparent to the court that a fair
investigation has not been conducted by the investigation o cer, and that the
husbandand his family have been charge-sheeted without proper veri cation of the
complaint, the investigation o cer should be penalized for gross negligence of duty.
14. NRI Issues : Unless they are proven to be guilty after the due judicial process,
NRIs should be a given a fair chance to justice by assuring them of the following -a)
Permission to return to country of employment b) No impoundment/revocation of
passport and no Interpol Red Corner Notices. c) No unnecessary arrests d) Expeditious
investigation and trial
15. Gender Neutral: Everyone should have equal rights and responsibilities, irrespective
of gender. In the current social context, there should be similar laws to protect harassed
husband and his family members from an unscrupulous wife.[25]
This Section only provides for the remedy to woman only and these days it is being
used as a brahamastra by the woman. It is a highly debatable issue these days, if this
problem is not solved by legislation it may become a bane for the society. Peoples
trust over the judiciary will come to an end. So its high time that this Section be
amended and some changes like mentioned above should be brought up in this law.
[1] The Indian penal Code, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, 30th edition reprint 2008,pg.
917
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ,Ratanlal &dhirajlal, 21st edition reprint
[2]
2009,pg. 560
[3] Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India;JT 2005(6) SC266
[4] Jagdish Chander vs. State of Haryana,1988 Cr. LJ 1048 (P&H)
[5] 2004 (9) SCC 157; 2004 SCC(Cr) 1417; 2003 AIR(SC) 3828
[6] 1986 (2) Crimes 435; 1986 (92) CRLJ 1510; 1986 RLR 220
[7] Ibid.
[8]1989 SCC(Cr) 105; 1989 (1) SCC 244; 1989 AIR(SC) 378; 1989 (1) Crimes 173;
1989 (95) CRLJ 809
[9] II (2000) DMC 628

[10] II (2003) DMC 546 (DB)
[11] State of Maharshtra v Jaiprakash Krishna Mangaonkar & Ors II(2003) DMC
384
[12] Annapurnabai @Bhoori v State of MP I (2000)DMC 699
[13] Ramesh Dalaji Godad v State of Gujarat II (2004) DMC 124
[14] I (2003) DMC 287
[15] U.Subba Rao & Ors v State of Karnataka II (2003) DMC 102; Umesh Kumar Shah &Ors v State of
Bihar
I (2004) DMC 260
[16] II (2003) DMC 461
[17] Ravinder Bhagwan Todkar & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors I (2004) DMC
791 (DB)
[18] II (2003) DMC 328
[19] I (2003) DMC 37 (DB)
[20] (1990)2 Rec Cri R 243
[21] 2000 CriLJ 2993
[22] 2002 CriLJ 3605
[23] 2002 CriLJ 4124
[24] JT 2005(6) 266
[25] After looking to the report of following suggestions have been made
Justice Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, Government
of India, Ministry of Home A airs, 2003
<http://www.mha.nic.in/pdfs/criminal_justice_system.pdf>chapter 16.
in News and current a airs
lawwarrior10
lawwarrior10
lawwarrior10 has not set their biography yet
View author's pro le Show more posts from author Subscribe to updates from author
Author's recent posts
Schedule X of our Constitution-a myth or a reality? - General blogging 05 Jun '11
Section 498A I.P.C.- Its Use & Misuse - News and current a airs 25 Feb '11
Rape Laws in India-Appropriate or not? - News and current a airs 25 Feb '11
Prior Restraint on Media - News and current a airs 25 Feb '11
Enter Email
Free Daily Updates!
Copyright 2009-2017 Legally India.com

Misuse

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Misuse

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/6/2017 Section 498A I.P.C.

- Its Use & Misuse - Experts & Views

Experts & Views

An estimated 28-minute read

Section 498A I.P.C.- Its Use &

Email Facebook Tweet Linked-in

Sec-498 A I.P.C. Its Use And Misuse

Matrimonial Cruelty in India is a cognizable, non bailable and non

Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.

The section was enacted to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It

Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act[2], reads as follows:

The presumption of cruelty within the meaning of section 113-A, Evidence

Constitution Validity of Section 498-A

Sec 498A and the Allegation of Misuse:

Article 15 of Indian Constitution

right to live a peaceful and happy life.

Use of Section 498 A by Indian Courts:

Mentally was at risk. Didnt the court notice this?

Misuse of Section 498 A in Modern World:

In Kanaraj vs. State of Punjab[21], the apex court observed as:

1. Role of Women NGOs: These organizations should investigate complaint properly

5. Investigation by Civil authorities: The investigation into these o ences be carried

7. Compoundable: Once FIR has been registered it becomes impossible to withdraw

10. Court Proceedings: Physical appearance of the accused on hearing should be

[3] Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India;JT 2005(6) SC266

[4] Jagdish Chander vs. State of Haryana,1988 Cr. LJ 1048 (P&H)

[9] II (2000) DMC 628

[10] II (2003) DMC 546 (DB)

[12] Annapurnabai @Bhoori v State of MP I (2000)DMC 699

[13] Ramesh Dalaji Godad v State of Gujarat II (2004) DMC 124

[14] I (2003) DMC 287

I (2004) DMC 260

[16] II (2003) DMC 461

[18] II (2003) DMC 328

[19] I (2003) DMC 37 (DB)

[20] (1990)2 Rec Cri R 243

[21] 2000 CriLJ 2993

[22] 2002 CriLJ 3605

[23] 2002 CriLJ 4124

[24] JT 2005(6) 266

in News and current a airs

Prior Restraint on Media - News and current a airs 25 Feb '11

Copyright 2009-2017 Legally India.com

You might also like