Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 197,762 people in 2012, for offences under Section 498 A (anti-dowry act) of the IPC
It is not uncommon for women to accuse their husbands of cruelty, while filing for divorce. In fact, the misuse of dowry laws is so common that a few years ago, the Supreme Court (SC) issued a set of guidelines to be complied with before arresting anyone in cases carrying a prison term of seven years or less.
Instead of helping the matters, however, this led to the emergence of a disturbing trend. It is being seen that to bypass the conditions of the arrest, the women are now using the provisions under Sections 354 (molestation), 376 (rape), and 377 (unnatural sex) of the Indian penal Code (IPC) to "strengthen" their dowry case and reach a speedy settlement. According to criminal lawyer Tanveer Ahmed Mir, this trend has emerged after the Arnesh Kumar judgment, under which these guidelines were passed. In the July 2, 2014 judgment, the SC had observed: "Section 498 A (anti-dowry act) was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. That Section 498-A, however, is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride among provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives."
After the judgment, however, not only husbands but their male relatives have also come in danger of being accused of rape. "In a large number of cases, we are finding allegations of rape being appended to anti-dowry cases so that the purpose of Section 41A (amended guidelines for arrest) is defeated. The purpose and intent of the Arnesh Kumar judgment is also defeated," Mir said.
Echoing the sentiment, a lawyer said a significant number of dowry cases now have at least one form of sexual harassment or rape charge tacked to them.
"I get at least 10 cases a month where I have represented clients from both sides," he said.
The misuse of the anti-dowry law has become such a menace that in the Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union of India judgment, the Apex Court had observed that Section 498 A was akin to "legal terrorism".
"The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner that many instances have come to light where complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. As noted, the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by the misuse of the provision, a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not an assassin's weapon," the SC had said in its July, 2005, judgment.
Then earlier this year, the SC directed the District Legal Services Authorities (DLSA) to constitute a three-member welfare committee to examine complaints before any arrests are made. The court also laid down guidelines to prevent the misuse of the anti-dowry laws.
Noted defense lawyer Rebecca John, however, refused to call this a trend and said she has seen only a few of such cases. "It is appalling that these are our legal standards. Women need redressal and it must come from the system, not fabrication of law," she said.
"It is important for the system to weed out such complaints. It would be grossly unfair to women who have genuine issues and are actual victims of rape and dowry harassment," she added.
NUMBERS SPEAK
- Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 197,762 people in 2012, for offences under Section 498 A (anti-dowry act) of the IPC.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Dowry laws")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}