Blog Details

CO-AUTHOR- DOLLY CHOUHAN

Section 498 a was introduced in the Indian penal code through an amendment in 1983. It was done in order to protect women from cruelty against her husband and in-laws. It states that 498A. Husband or husband’s relative 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 will be punished with imprisonment for a term extendable to three years and will also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means— (added in the case of Shobha Rani vs. Medhukar Reddy)

A. any conduct which is of a certain nature and 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 a woman done 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.

The purpose of the introduction of this section was the protection of women but what it has done in all these years is exactly the opposite. Due to the nature of strictness. It is a cognizable offence which means that police can arrest the accused without any warrant and the accused can be charged with up to seven years of imprisonment. Questions have also been raised against the gender-biased nature of this law because under this section only a female can complain against her husband. Even though it is presumed that she is in a more exposed and vulnerable environment in her marital home, this has been misused by many women in different ways. This section also gives the liberty to the women to extend her complaint to any of the relatives of the husband which increases the scope of misusing and increases the chances of innocents being termed as criminals. The Supreme court has named such practices as “legal terrorism”.

The objective of the introduction of this section into the IPC was to protect the women from this imperil called dowry and harassment and deaths following it by the husband or his relatives but it was clearly laid in the case Onkar Nath Mishra vs State of Delhi that it should be made sure that this is not used to fulfil any unlawful motives.

There are certain essential ingredients of the admission of an offence u/s 498 (a) i.e 

1. The woman must be married

2. The woman must be subjected to cruelty and/or harassment, and

3. Cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by the husband of the woman or by the husband’s relative as seen in the case of U. Suvetha v. State.

The word ‘husband’ is also described under this section but it was laid down in the case of Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam that the legitimacy of the definition of husband should not obstruct or prove a barrier to the idea of justice. 

It was also added through this case that a second wife also has a right to derive benefit u/s 498 (a) and it was upheld in the Andhra Pradesh high court in the case of A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P. woman living in a live-in relationship with a man has till date not included in the sphere of a wife and therefore rights pertaining to wives are currently not applicable to them and therefore they can not file a case under section 498 (a).

It had also been said by a chairperson of a certain State Commissions for Women of India that, "Many women are using 498A of the IPC (anti-dowry law) to terrorize their husbands and their families.” She termed this law as a “cruel and wicked design to blackmail husbands and in-laws." 

Justice K. G. Balakrishnan, the Chief Justice of India, in 2009 had also in one of these addresses stated that Section 498A is being “grossly misused” and that relatives not involved with a matrimonial dispute were often unfairly implicated. 

This law proved to be rather horrendous for NRI husbands because once the case is filed against him in the court he can not enter the country in fear of getting arrested whereas his relatives are put in police custody and in regard to their bail he is usually forced to make an agreement with the wife where she in a position to extort high amount of money and valuables from him.

This is a cognizable and non-bailable offence which means that the husband is kept in custody until proved innocent or bail granted and bail is usually not granted in such types of cases in order to look out for a woman's safety. Another factor to look at in such cases is the media trial, media tarnishes the reputation of the husband without realizing that the accusation could be false, this is a major drawback of gender-biased laws where the word of the woman is considered the absolute truth and people believe it as it happens in the rape laws. The apex has realized that this section is most of the times misused and has also given directions to prevent the misuse of this section in the case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India because it believes that this provision is intended to be used as a shield and not as a weapon by the assassin. But it had also in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, said that a mere possibility of abuse of a legal provision does not invalidate it and therefore Section 498-A is constitutional.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

https://www.mondaq.com/india/crime/743068/section-498a-of-ipc-a-weapon-or-a-shield-supreme-court-of-india

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2018/12/03/law-for-laymen-section-498-a-ipc-and-allied-sections-cruelty-to-women/

https://www.international-divorce.com/Indias-Notorious-Section-498A.htm 

https://blog.ipleaders.in/need-know-section-498a-ipc/

https://www.shoneekapoor.com/498a/

https://www.barandbench.com/topic/section-498a