Arrested for killing wife, Husband commits suicide in Police Custody

April 12, 2009

Arrested for killing wife, Husband commits suicide in Police Custody
Undertrail ends life,+ba\

Express News ServiceFirst Published : 11 Apr 2009 09:59:00 AM ISTLast Updated :
11 Apr 2009 12:25:24 PM IST
BANGALORE: An undertrial, who was admitted to hospital after he complained of chest pain, committed suicide by jumping from the fourth floor of the hospital under Tilaknagar police station limits on Thursday.

The deceased is Prakash Nayak (30), a native of Kadur. He is the accused in the murder of his wife reported on January 6, 2008. Nayak was married to one Nagamma of Nelamangala and murdered her following a petty quarrel between them. He was arrested by the Nelamangala police and was in judicial custody. After this incident, he is said to have lost his mental balance and on April 5, he was rushed to Jayadeva Hospital for chest pain treatment and admitted in a ward located on the fourth floor. On Thursday, he went out of his ward on the pretext of going to the toilet and committed suicide by jumping off the fourth floor. Tilakanagara police are investigating.


Woman fined for filing false maintenance case

April 12, 2009

Woman fined for filing false maintenance case
+ Case+Against+ Husband,+ Gets+Fined+ Instead

Kundapur, Feb 17: In a rare case, the Udupi district court has fined Rs 5,000 to a woman who filed a case against her husband claiming payment of alimony, on the ground that she has filed false case against her husband for harassing him.

Estela Rodrigues, a resident of Kallianpur Santekatte, had accused her husband, who lived abroad, of meting our mental torture to her, besides driving her out of his home. She had claimed that her husband did not pay her any money for family maintenance and asked the court to pass orders, requiring him to pay alimony to her.

After the court served notices, her husband who appeared in person at the court, dismissed the charges. He alleged, that his wife had driven his aged mother out of the house and admitted her into a home for the aged located in Sastan, some distance away.

He also brought to the notice of the court, the fact that his wife had booked two dowry harassment cases against him besides a fake murder-attempt case. He pointed out that the courts which had conducted detailed hearing, had acquitted him of all these charges earlier. He also brought to the attention of the court the fact that even after registering the cases, his wife continued to live in his house for a considerable period.

The court was informed, that his wife’s claim that she was unemployed was misleading and that she worked in Goretti Hospital Kallianpur. Documentary proof was submitted in the court in support of this claim.

The court observed that the husband attended much more hearings as compared to the wife who had filed the case. Judge Katyayini who heard the case, dismissed the petition moved by the wife and ordered her to pay fine.

Kundapur advocate Ravikiran Murdeshwar appeared in the court on behalf of the defendant.

Dowry case against top cops

April 12, 2009

Dowry case against top cops
12 Apr 2009, 0358 hrs IST, TNN

PONDA: Ponda police have registered a dowry harassment case lodged by a woman from Wadi-Talauli in Ponda taluka, against two top police officers who are her husband and brother-in-law.

According to police, Sangeeta Gaonkar alias Sanjyokta Sanjiv Khandeparkar, 30, was married to Sanjiv Dhaku Khandeparkar from Rajinwada-Gaune in Ponda on June 9, 2008. However, soon after the marriage her husband and his brother Eknath Dhaku Gaude began harassing and torturing her mentally and physically for dowry.

Her husband Sanjiv is a police sub-inspector and the brother-in-law is a deputy superintendent of police attached to wireless section of Goa police at Panaji police headquarters, said sources. The woman was forced to leave the house of her husband and is presently staying at her parents house.

498A/DV Franchise opportunities: B’lore woman marries 10, robs them

April 9, 2009

Kausar Begum & Renoo(cow) Pink Chaddi LLC (A New York Incorporated) would like to offer the following Franchise opportunities, subject to the following:

1.  Must be a woman

2.  If married to a rich guy acceptable, else prefer unmarried

3.  Will provide training, equipment and videos to trap rich men/families

4.  Will provide training, equipment and dialogues to lure and get married

5.  Will provide training, equipment and lawyer certified scripts – for filing of DV/498A within
6-12 months of marriage.  Detailed services as below: 

–  without any physical injuries free, included in price!
–  with carefully selected injuries or surgical manipulations 10% extra fee
–  no injuries but photograph manipulations and video manipulations :  20% extra fee
–  get 5 passer-by witnesses that happened to see the crime:  10% extra
–  showing husband involved with another woman in photo: add another 10%. 
–  bring husband’s nude picture and we will add a nude partner to it- for only 10% extra!
–  want to show husband is gay – no problem – another 10% extra
–  burn your mother in law, husband and father-in-law after getting their property documents and then claim self-defence:  50% extra
–  poison entire family after taking their signatures on property and then vacation in Switzerland for ever with Swiss accounts:  60% extra

6.  We will provide legal aid to the ‘abandoned’ 498A wife legally through the Non-Profits under Renuka Choudhary, offer includes free pink chaddies and free beer for life

7.  Get rich in maximum 18 months, live on free Government money, free pink chaddies and free beer Guaranteed!

8.  Pay us only 25% after full job is done (Job minimum $200k)

9.  Causing male suicide or suicides in husband’s family – only 10% extra fee, can be added any time

10.  We can also teach you how to file 498A/DV while sitting remote, especially if you are NRI.  You need to send only one/two emails to anyone in India (lawyer certified templates available) and after that we will take it up with Ram-da-ass and media for NRI abuse

11.  NRI cases involving over $50k get 5% discount, over $200k potential get 10% discount

12.  Women willing to 498A/DV multiple husbands will be given strict preference.  We like repeat business and those willing to provide 5 or more hus-bands will get another 10% extra commissions

13.  Also, if you are in the US – since no Indian law can reach you and there is no American law that bars you – you can start a 498A/DV franchise openly yourself and you can guide more Indian women to do this after taking the necessary $1000 per woman benefit available from the Indian Consulate.  More women you enroll, more are the chances that Renuka Choudhary may also nominate you for Bharat Ratna.

14.  Also available Gold level membership for NRI women – where if you deposit $5000 and bring 1 case right away before April 30 2009 – you get another 5% bonus!

Enquiries are welcome. Call 1-800-498ADV now Indian Standard Time.

Vote for any Party, but not for Congress

April 8, 2009

Shocking Statistics:
1. Close to 300 children arrested in 2007 under the draconian laws.
2. As per the NCRB data, more than 80% people arrested under dowry laws cases have turned out to be innocent. (For example: in the year 2006 a total number of 137180 persons were arrested under 498A and out of those 4812 were not even charge sheeted. Out of the 62746 persons who were charge sheeted -50,895 i.e. approx 81% were found innocent after the completion of the trial and the rest are still under trial).

3. Every year close to 75,000 dowry cases are lodged. As per Govt. studies, there is only 2% conviction. Which means in 98% of the cases the complaint cannot be taken as an evidence as provided in Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

4. Every case affects the lives of at least 10 people from either side which means every year 1500,000 people are adversely affected by such cases. Taking a 10 year data (since on an average a case goes for 8-9 years), 15 Million people are suffering on either sides due to rampant misuse of Section 498A. These 15 Million people form a 2% vote bank.

5. Every year 57,000 married men commit suicide in India as against 29,000 married women (source: 2007  NCRB).

6. Every year more than 100,000 men lose their job and become unemployed because of wrongful arrests under the dowry laws.

7. World Health Organization report on Elder Abuse finds misuse of dowry laws by the daughters- in-law as the main reason for the elder abuse in India.

8. The Supreme Court of India has already termed the dowry law misuse as “Legal Terrorism”.
9. BBC study indicates that more than 80% women under-trials (related to husbands) lodged in Tihar jail (Delhi) are booked under dowry related laws.

10. 123,497 women (related to husbands) were arrested in the 4 years (2004 to 2007) under the dowry laws as against the 17,000 women only arrested by the British during the tumultuous decade (1937 to 1947). The Women’s Welfare Ministry is in fact the Wive’s Welfare Ministry.

11. More than 82% of tax collection is contributed by the Indian men but there is no Men’s Welfare Ministry. In a country like India where we have an Animal Welfare Ministry  it is a complete overlook for the men.

Our Expectations:
1. Formation of Men’s Welfare Ministry and institution of National Commission for Men.
2. Promotion of Gender neutral laws to promote family harmony (man/woman to be replaced by person and husband/wife to be replaced by spouse).
3. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code to be made bailable, non-cognizable and compoundable, as per the recommendations of Malimath Committee report to save the institution of marriage.
4. Punishment for misuse of the provisions of the dowry law by default in case the complaint / case if found false.
5. Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) of 2005 should be gender neutral as it is in all developed countries.
6. Workplace harassment legal framework should be made gender neutral.
7. Duplication of legal provisions for similar benefits should be scrapped to avoid unnecessary and multiple litigations and also to stop the wastage of judicial and administrative resources for e.g. in maintenance provisions. Currently maintenance can be sought under 4-5 different heads for the same cause of action which causes confusion and brings inefficiency in addition to burdening the system.
8. Empowerment of women through proper education to make them independent.
9. There should not be any discrimination in the matters of religion, caste and sex as well.
10. Effective measures to eliminate female feticide and child abuse/labor.

Sexual harassment is a human rights violation: CIC

April 8, 2009
And the WCD Ministry is proposing in Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill 2007 that
as per the proposed section 14 the proceedings of sexual harrassment committe will be out of purview of the RTI act.
Now with the below decision of CIC will they still try to shield the misuser women? When the CIC is not leaving even RAW which is already out of purview of the RTI act as per section 24 and second schedule of RTI act 🙂
Sexual harassment is a human rights violation: CIC
Sexual harassment amounts to human rights violation and no organisation, including RAW, should be exempted from the purview of RTI Act in such cases, the CIC has said.

While hearing the plea of a women RAW officer, the Central Information Commission held, “… this entire application centres on allegations of sexual harassment which is a material basis for allegations of human rights violation.

We have also on earlier occasion also held that overt gender discrimination amounts to violation of human rights.”

Although the commission dismissed the plea of Nisha Priya Bhatia, a RAW officer who had demanded information under RTI Act on her complaint regarding allegations of sexual exploitation by seniors on technical grounds, it advised her to move a fresh application seeking information which was denied by the agency.

“It will be open to Nisha Bhatia to move a fresh application before the RAW seeking information on the matters which she has now sought at the level of second appeal. Her right to so move an application notwithstanding the listing of RAW in the second schedule is upheld in light of proviso to sec 24 (1)…” Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah held.

I request joint secretary Ministry of women and child development, joint secretary ministry of law and justice (legislative department) and commission members and law officer of National Commission for Women to come out of their closed AC cabins and face the reality which is even depriving genuin victims from excercising their basic human rights… Neeraj

Corrupt Central Information Commisioner M. M. Ansari

April 4, 2009
Hello Reader,
I had a hearing at CIC for my appeal and the IC was shri M. M. Ansari. I had a very bad experience with this information commissioner and want to appeal/review further. Please oblige me with your RTI expertise.
1. Is there any time bar of appealing against the Decision of a central Information commissioner in High Court. I read The Central Information Commission (Management)Regulations, 2007 and didn’t find any mention of High Court appeal. Where can i find guidelines regarding appealing in the High Court.
2. In the Central Information Commission (Management)Regulations, I read that against the Decision of the Central Information commissioner an appellant can write to Chief central Information Commissioner for “appeal or review” of the decision u/s 23(2). Is it mandatory that we have to approach the chief Central Information Commissioner first, before approaching the Honb’le High Court? If so, can anybody provide me with the sample appeal/review petition?
3. The Central IC M. M. Ansari has not followed any judicial discipline in his order (
Breif facts of the case are:
a) The event, a Round table conference with Men’s Group was conducted on June 25, 2008.
b) The present RTI was filed on June 26, 2008.
c) The CPIO with Women and Child Development ministry (WCD) replied to above RTI on July 28, 2008.
d) The first appeal with Appellate Authority was filed on August 12, 2008.
e) The Appellate Authority replied on August 22, 2008.
f) The 2nd Appeal with CIC was filed on November 11, 2008.
g) After receiving the copy of 2nd Appeal with CIC the WCD ministry supplied some documents via a letter dated December 16, 2008 which was received by me on December 23, 2008.
At the CIC hearing, The IC (Mr. Ansari):
(i) He has not mentioned in his order about neither the first date of hearing (23-02-09) when the respondent deliberately avoided their presence nor about the proceeding of said date.
(ii) In the first ex-parte hearing on 23-02-09, the IC starts arguing that how could we seek info based on newspaper reports. I want to ask what are the means of knowledge to the citizens, Except media, that what a ministry is doing? The news was published and we asked the info based on that. If there was no such happenning, the PIO or first appellate authority in their respective replies must have denied that there is no such event took place on that date. The IC further said you should have filed for inspection of records as you demanded vague information. How could the copies of the official agenda, the suggestions received from various stake-holders and the list of invitees/participants of a round table conference are vague information?
(iii) We explained our grievances and it was decided that at least the reason for 6-months delay in providing the information will be asked.
(iv) In the second hearing on 26-03-09, IC just ignored our repeated request to ask the respondent about the reason of such a long delay in providing the partial information. Mere reply of PIO and first appellate authority (as in para 3 of decision) can not be equated to providing information.
(v) IC himself started defending the respondents that the suggestions and representations received are third party information and PIO has already obliged the appellant by providing the same. How could public comments/suggestions received by a ministry on some review of law could be termed third party information and that is by the IC himself?
(vi) Is the copy of second appeal forwarded to the CPIO and first appellate authority, an another chance to the respondents to provide the information? On an RTI filed on 26th june 2008, and after receiving the copy of second appeal for filing their counter, if the CPIO provides some junk & misleading info on 23rd Dec 2008, and even then IC is not asking the reason for delay, is it not corruption in CIC?
(vii) When we asked the IC, who is going to fix the accountability, you are just saying that “you have got the information , otherwise under official secrets act you would have not even got this”. When I asked, do you have any powers to impose penalty u/s 20(1) or not, he said “_NO_, you challenge and I (ansari) will defend it”.
(viii) In para 4, The reply that ministry is in consultation with statke holders on the suggestions received itself says that info is available but not provided. The appellant had not demanded any action taken report on the suggestions received but just the copy of the suggestions. Why the info at first instance was not given even if the infor was available. How there is “No denial of Information”?
(ix)Para 6:
> The CPIO replied and furnished partial information and for the remaining information the appellant was informed that the suggestions received from various stake-holders were being examined by the respondent in consultation with the National Commission for Women.
Contention: Without verifying, where the CPIO provided info? He just said we are discussing? If the info is not with the ministry and it has been forwarded to the National Commision for Women (NCW), why the CPIO didn’t forwarded the application to NCW as per section 6(3) of RTI, after providing the info the ministry has?
> Clearly, the complete information, as asked for, was not available. Hence, it could not be furnished.
The IC is pronouncing decisions based on presumption even when there is no such reason given by either CPIO or first appellate authority that the info is not available or not prepared at all. Can IC not ask the PIO, why after 6 months of the consulation program, the meetings of minutes are not available? Under section 4(1)(b)(viii) every public authority need to make meeting of minutes.
(x) The IC had not even ordered the respondents to invite us for inspection of records for remaining information. Why we need to file a separate application again for the same, as you all could see from his decision?
(xi) How IC can comment like “Ministry has other works to do, like food programs for children etc…”? IC ansari had crossed his jurisdiction. The way Ansari was protecting the respondents, I smell a foul play here and I do not see any recourse but to seek justice from the Honb’le High court.
(x) Last para:
> As regards the appellant’s allegations against the respondent for not drawing up the formal minutes in respect of the Consultation programme, the appellant is advised to approach the competent authority with a plea to do the needful as per the established practices.
Even on request why ansari not ordered the respondents to prepare formal minutes of meetings and provide to the appellant? Does an IC has power of, require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act:
1. by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records u/s 19(8)(a)(iv) and
2. by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4 u/s 19(8)(a)(vi);
I have other appeals pending to be heard on 16-04-09, against same respondents and with the same IC ansari. Ansari is a corrupt man and as per the Honb’le Suprme court justice Justice Markande Katju “Corrupt should be hanged from lamp post”. We need to hang Ansari, help me. It was a shocking first experience for me.
Please help me by suggesting, On what law points (w.r.t the above mentioned CIC decision) I can challenge ansari’s decision in the Honb’le HC. Please post our vews here.

Sec 498A of the Indian Penal Code a weapon in the hands of vamps

January 8, 2009


 Objective: The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was amended in the year 1983 to include the provisions of Section 498 A which deals with the punishment of the husband and his relatives if a married women is subjected to cruelty which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave physical or mental injury to her, and harassment with a view to coercing her or any of her relatives to meet any unlawful demands of property. The offence is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable. Hence once a complaint is lodged on the above mentioned grounds the accused has a lot to bear before he can be given a clean chit. With the rise in modernisation, education, financial 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. My aim is to study the cause and effect relationship that this section brought about in the matrimonial sphere of the Indian society.


 Scope : The scope of my article is to cover Section 498a of the IPC relating to  criminal law in which the wife and her family can charge any or all of the husband’s family of physical or mental cruelty. This law is unique to India as it not only discriminates based on gender (man Vs. woman), but also discriminates against women based on their relationship with the husband. Typically, the charged family members in these cases include:


• Mostly women of all ages (unmarried, married and pregnant sisters of the husband, his mother and sisters-in-law, elderly grandmothers and aunts)


• Other maternal and paternal relatives and even young children in the family.


The Report will deal with the ingredients of the section and what must be essentially proved to convict an accused under this section. I will also deal with the provisions relating to the cognisable and non-bailable provisions of this section. The non-bailability provision is grossly misused by unscrupulous wives who file false complaints against unsuspecting husbands and her in laws. The police in such cases register and FIR and forward the chargesheet without proper investigation in most of the cases. A lot of men have had their lives ruined because of this drastic section.


 Methodology :


 I have used the doctrinal method of legal research for this report. Thus it required an extensive study of the provision along with the relevant act of the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. Reference to case laws have been made by going through case laws in relation to this provision.


The Supreme Court of India says, “But by misuse of the provision (IPC 498a – Dowry and Cruelty Law) a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended


to be used a shield and not an assassin’s weapon”. Laws originally meant to protect from the dowry menace are being misused by urban ill-intentioned, unscrupulous women and their families as “an assassin’s weapon” . There is a rapidly escalating social evil in Indian families, namely the misuse of the Dowry and Cruelty laws (Criminal Laws), which were originally meant to act “as a shield” for the protection of harassed women. Nowadays, the educated urban Indian women have turned the


tables. They have discovered several loopholes in the existing Indian judicial system and are using the dowry laws to harass all or most of the husband’s family that includes mothers, sisters, sisters-in-law, elderly grandparents, disabled individuals and even very young children.


We are not talking about the dowry deaths or physical injury cases but about dowry harassment cases that require no evidence and can be filed just based on a single-sentence complaint by the wife. With an approximately 60,000 such accusations per year, about 200,000 people are directly affected by these false accusations. The number of such cases has increased by about 100% in the last 10 years and by more than 15% in just the last two years. This poorly formulated law is inviting unscrupulous people to file false cases, and causing the imprisonment of innocent people without investigation. These innocent people undergo stigmatization and hardship even before a trial in the court of law which leads to immense emotional, physical and financial trauma. Unable to bear the harassment, the loss of reputation and the social consequences of being implicated in a false criminal case, some of these falsely accused husbands and their elderly parents are committing suicide. Despite the recommendations of the Supreme Court of India and Justice Malimath Committee that the legislative arm should modify the laws such that the innocent are protected, the suggested amendments to the law have been largely ignored. Unconstrained, this social evil is threatening the foundation of the Indian Family system. For every complaint filed by a woman, there are generally twice as many or more women are accused although the married couple may have never lived with any of the people mentioned in the criminal complaint.


Let us look into the general text of the section it reads 498A. 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 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.


 Explanation.-For the purposes 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 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.


 IPC-498a is:


• Cognizable – The accused can be arrested and jailed without warrant or investigation


• Non-Compoundable – The complaint cannot be withdrawn by the petitioner


• Non-Bailable – The accused must appear in the court to request bail


The accused are presumed guilty, and for all practical purposes, the burden is on the accused to prove innocence in the courts. The FIR is typically an imaginary story, running into many pages, with absolutely no supporting evidence. It typically takes about 7 to 8 years for the accused to prove their innocence in the courts. Due to the overwhelmingly large number of false cases, the conviction rate in these cases is close to zero. The delay in the provision of justice amounts to the denial of justice. There is no penalty for the misuse of IPC 498a, and after acquittal of the accused, the courts are reluctant to entertain defamation and perjury cases against the falsely testifying witnesses.


We must look into why people misuse the provisions of Sec 498A of the IPC.


• Legal Extortion – Get-rich-quick-scheme to extort large amounts of money


• Prior Relationship – Wife has a prior relationship, and cannot get out of it. She marries to satisfy her parents, and then misuses the 498a law in order to obtain a divorce.


• Adultery – Women who indulge in adultery use 498a as a bargaining tool


• Domination – Wife wants the husband to abandon his parents and siblings, and have total control over his finances and social behaviour


• Custody – Deny the father and his family access to their child(ren).


• Fraudulent Marriages – in which the bride (and her family) hides her education level or mental health; and when is justifiably asked to release the person who has gone into marriage without knowing the full facts; she files a false 498a case.


The kind of women who are likely to file false 498A cases have certain typical traits :


• Who is suffering from pre-existing mental problems such as Borderline Personality Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, etc.,


• Whose family is nouveau riche and likes ostentatious display of wealth, possessions as well as social and political connections


• Who is used to living beyond her means


• Whose father is hen-pecked and whose mother dominates all family situations


• Who listens to and acts in accordance with her parents’ wishes at all times, exhibiting a lack of individuality and discretion in dealing with her married life


• Who pushes for quick involvement during the establishment of a marriage alliance, pressing the man and his family for an instantaneous commitment


• Who is excessively possessive and suspicious


• Who is self-centred and feels the need to dominate the relationship and every aspect of decision making


• Who tries to alienate her husband from his family and friends


• Who is hypersensitive and therefore easily insulted


• Who indulges in verbal abuse and constant criticism of her husband and in-laws


• Who uses blackmail (emotional or otherwise) and threats to get her unreasonable demands fulfilled by her husband and in-laws


• Who walks out on her husband following an argument and stays away from her husband indefinitely without any effort towards reconciliation


 Today every husband is labelled a torturer and the mother-in-law a demon. A fair amount of blame for this rests on the media which, with a view to sensationalize the ‘story’ blows the news of ‘harassment’ or ‘torture’ of married women out of proportions, without properly investigating the veracity of the story. The news of alleged ‘torture, harassment, and misappropriation of stridhan’ of wife by ‘A’ was published prominently by a leading city newspaper, accusing several members of his family torturing her. The concerned reporter never bothered to verify the allegations with the husband of ‘A’. As the news carried his full name and those of his relatives, designation and the organization where he was working, it caused irreparable damage to the entire family’s image and hard-earned reputation in almost every circle they moved. Queries started pouring in following this news. Depressed as he was, ‘A’ immediately registered his protest with the editor. The newspaper did publish his rejoinder, but after a long time gap and without any apology for publishing an unverified report. One wonders where this growing tendency of misusing the useful laws by unscrupulous parties is leading the society. Harassing and victimizing women for dowry is condemnable. We all have sisters, and daughters, and undoubtedly they require legal protection from all forms of harassment and cruelty but what if the legal loopholes of this very law are misused by women to harass their husbands and in-laws?


The Apex Court has also commented on the possible misuse of this provision in a number of cases. Right to life and liberty of every citizen is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But this life and liberty can be curtailed if they hinder others’ life and liberty. For that due process of law is necessary. While civil law determines what is right and what is wrong, the criminal law imposes penalty to deter.


Section 498A was inserted in the Indian Penal Code in 1984 with a view to protect women against dowry harassment. From the very beginning of this law there has been reaction from the society including legal luminaries that this law could be misused and its effects on the society would be deleterious. In their judicial observations and remarks, the courts have expressed deep anguish over this law. Here are some recent judicial observations.


Way back in 1990 Punjab and Haryana High court observed in Jasbir Kaur vs. State of Haryana, (1990)2 Rec Cri R 243 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 effort to salvage whatever remains of an estranged marriage.”


In Kanaraj vs. State of Punjab, 2000 CriLJ 2993 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, 2002 CriLJ 3605 observed as:


“Roping in of the whole of the family including brothers and sisters-in-law has to be depreciated unless there is a specific 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. 2002 CriLJ 4124 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”


Delhi high Court, in Savitri Devi vs. Ramesh Chand, 2003 CriLJ 2759 case observed as:


“These provisions were though made with good intentions but the implementation has left a very bad taste and the move has been counter productive. There is a growing tendency amongst the women which is further perpetuated by their parents and relatives to rope in each and every relative including minors and even school going kids nearer or distant relatives and in some cases against every person of the family of the husband whether living away or in other town or abroad and married, unmarried sisters, sisters-in-law, unmarried brothers, married uncles and in some cases grand parents or as many as 10 o 15 or even more relatives of the husband.”


Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Bhupinder Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2003 CriLJ 3394 case observed as:


“From the reading of the FIR, it is evident that there is no specific allegation of any act against petitioners Nos.2 and 3, which constitute offence under s.498-A I.P.C. I am satisfied that these two persons have been falsely implicated in the present case, who were minors at the time of marriage and even at the time of lodging the present FIR. Neither of these two persons was alleged to have been entrusted with any dowry article nor they alleged to have ever demanded any dowry article. No specific allegation of demand of dowry, harassment and beating given to the complainant by the two accused has been made. The allegations made are vague and general. Moreover, it cannot be ignored that every member of the family of the husband has been implicated in the case. The initiation of criminal proceedings against them in the present case is clearly an abuse of the process of law”


 Jharkhand High Court in Arjun Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, 2004 CriLJ 2989 case observed as:


“In the instant case, it appears that that the criminal case has been filed, which is manifestly intended with mala fide and ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.


In this connection reliance may be placed upon AIR 1992 SC 604: (1992CriLJ 527)”


Supreme Court, in a relatively recent case, Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and others, JT 2005(6) 266 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 bonafide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered 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 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 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 assassin’s 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 effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer 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.”


Justice Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, 2003 observed the following and gave the recommendation to amend the law immediately:


“16.4.4 In less tolerant impulsive woman may lodge an FIR even on a trivial act. The result is that the husband and his family may be immediately arrested and there may be a suspension or loss of job. The offence alleged being non-bailable, innocent persons languish in custody. There may be a claim for maintenance adding fuel to fire, if the husband cannot pay. She may change her mind and get into the mood to forget and forgive. The husband may realize the mistakes committed and come forward to turn a new leaf for a loving and cordial relationship. The woman may like to seek reconciliation. But this may not be possible due to the legal obstacles. Even if she wishes to make amends by withdrawing the complaint, she can not do so as the offence is non compoundable. The doors for returning to family life stand closed. She is thus left at the mercy of her natal family.


16.4.5 This section, therefore, helps neither the wife nor the husband. The offence being non-bailable and non compoundable makes an innocent person undergo stigmatization and hardship. Heartless provisions that make the offence non-bailable and non-compoundable operate against reconciliations. It is therefore necessary to make this offence (a) bailable and (b) compoundable to give a chance to the spouses to come together.


(118) The Code may be suitably amended to make the offence under Section 498 A of the I.P.Code, bailable and compoundable.”


These are only a few observations of their lordships from scores which conclusively prove that:


1. A woman (not necessarily every woman) can be much more cruel than a man (not necessarily every man).


2. While intending to protect the life of a person, s.498A of IPC jeopardizes around a dozen innocent persons whether they are children or old. Hence, the provision is discriminatory and in violation to the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.


3. Instead of restoring equilibrium, the provision aggravates disequilibria. Hence, it is not only imbalanced but also there is a failure of guarantee of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.


4. For the reasons stated under conclusions 3 and 4 above the provision is not only imbalanced but also ultravires. Because of these maladies the provision needs to be amended at the earliest to protect the life and liberty of millions of innocent people including children and old. Prior to that the learned and honourable courts may consider imposition of heavy penalty as done in case of vexatious PILs. Such PILs are only vexatious but in the matter of the cases may be false, mala fide, malicious and revengeful.


 What could be the possible alterations in the present system and the 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 husband’s family. They should not encourage any woman to file 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 NRI’s 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 filing 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 different 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 counselling centres 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. Definition of Mental Cruelty: Mental cruelty has been vaguely defined 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 file a case for mental cruelty by his wife.


 5. Investigation by Civil authorities: The investigation into these offences be carried out by civil authorities and only after his/her finding as to the commission of the offence, cognizance should be taken. The government should create awareness among officers 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 offence 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 Officers: If it is apparent to the court that a fair investigation has not been conducted by the investigation officer, and that the husbandand his family have been charge-sheeted without proper verification of the complaint, the investigation officer 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.




 IPC section 498a was originally designed to protect married women from being harassed or subjected to cruelty by husbands and/or their relatives. This law was mainly aimed at curbing dowry harassment. Unfortunately, this law has been misused to harass men and their families rather than protect genuine female victims of harassment. The Supreme Court of India itself has labelled the misuse of section 498a as “legal terrorism” and stated that “many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with an oblique motive. In such cases, acquittal of the accused does not wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to the trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery.“ In agreement with the above statement, the findings of a study conducted by The Centre for Social Research indicated that 98 percent of the cases filed under IPC section 498a are false. Nevertheless, the law has been always justified based on its intention of protecting women. At this point it would be worthwhile to think about how IPC section 498a has really affected women.


 It has been argued by Government officials favouring the law that despite the establishment of legal measures to counter harassment of married women, there is an increase in the number of cases of harassment. The first part of the statement suggests that women who are harassed should be utilizing this law as a means of protection. If harassed women indeed used the law then we should see a decrease in the number of cases of harassment over time. Considering the stringent consequences imposed by the law and the inordinate delays inherent in the legal system, no ordinary citizen, male or female, would be impudent enough to risk being implicated under this law for the sake of satisfying their monetary or even sadistic desires for that matter. The fact is that many women who are actually beaten up and harassed by their husbands and in-laws rarely file 498a or resort to other dowry related laws. A lot of them live in rural areas, unaware of the law or lack the necessary economic and moral support from their natal families. Going by the conviction rate the proportion of women who have genuine cases is 2%. Most women who file 498a are from urban backgrounds and are either capable of fending for themselves or have enough family support to fall back on. The proportion of women who belong to this category is 98%. In the 98% of false cases, in every instance that 1 daughter-in-law files a false complaint at least 2 women (an innocent mother-in-law and sister-in-law) are arrested and undergo stress, humiliation and harassment in the hands of the exploitative police, lawyers, staff and officials in Indian courts before being acquitted several years later. So, in every 100 cases 2 women genuinely benefit, 98 women get away with perjury and extortion, and at least 196 women suffer needlessly.


The number of cases that are filed in police stations or courts are the basis for the official statistics of dowry harassment. So, given that the law allows women unlimited scope to fabricate lies (with no penalty of perjury) and given that women are encouraged to keep filing false cases the statistics of “dowry harassment” are bound to rise while the problem of genuine harassment is left unchecked. So, the government has, in the name of protection of women, done grave injustice to two groups of women. The first group constitutes the genuine victims of dowry harassment whose misery remains unresolved but is constantly alluded to in order to justify the law. The second group consists of innocent mothers and sisters of husbands who are criminalized and harassed by the police and the legal system without any regard to their age, health or marital status. Pregnant women, unmarried sisters, ailing mothers and even aged grandmothers have been sent behind the bars under false allegations but their pain and suffering has not even been acknowledged leave alone addressed by the Government. Through IPC section 498a, the Government is actually protecting those women that indulge in perjury, blackmail, extortion and harassment of their husbands and inlaws.


January 8, 2009

Promotion and Support to legal Terrorism From Lawyers: Below news in TOI proves it all.

Lawyers strike to bail themselves out

8 Jan 2009, 0326 hrs IST, Abhinav Garg, TNN

NEW DELHI: For all their public posturing and indignation against the CrPC amendment vesting greater discretionary powers with the police in making an arrest, lawyers privately admit their opposition to it because the changed law will reduce bail cases.

Though loathe to come on record, lawyers across various district bar associations in Delhi which struck work on Wednesday predicted a drastic fall in bail cases due to the CrPC amendment. Since it gives greater leeway to an investigating officer (IO) to decide if an arrest is warranted or not in offences which carry a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment, observers say number of arrests for such crimes is likely to come down and so will the corresponding bail matters ending up before courts.

The bar associations, however, have wrapped their grievances in dire warnings of lawlessness and increased crimes against women, since a molester can now walk away secure in the knowledge that he might not be arrested. Still, was going on strike the solution, given that every judicial authority from the Supreme Court to Delhi High Court has repeatedly directed lawyers to refrain from this option?

“It isn’t a strike on principle and policy,” says senior lawyer Kamini Jaiswal, referring to Wednesday’s protest. She said it was the loss of clients due to less bail pleas that was causing heartburn to most district lawyers, “Litigant had nothing to do with the amendment but it is he who suffers the most because of such strikes. Even when SC has termed strike as `gross misconduct’ lawyers resort to it, this is extremely unfortunate. If we take a fee we are dutybound to provide legal service to our clients,” she said.

While the bar associations claim the amendment will lead to increase in crimes like kidnapping, stabbing, forgery etc, lawyers like Ashok Arora see nothing wrong in the amendment, concluding it will in fact “help administration of justice”. He added, “Whether bail matters will be reduced or not shouldn’t be concern of any profession. As lawyers our aim should be to help in administration of justice.”

Even the judges, speaking on condition of anonymity, maintained the bar striking work at the drop of a hat on every issue was unacceptable. “In district courts, many lawyers are dependent on fighting cases for anticipatory or interim bail. Therefore this amendment has left them fuming,” added an HC judge familiar with the workings of lower courts.

It was left to Delhi High Court Bar Association president K C Mittal to stand by his lower court counterparts and back their demands. “Amendment does suffer from many defects which will have consequences like escalation of crime. Giving discretion to police to arrest or not means there will be no deterrence,” Mittal told TOI. When asked if going on strike was a good way to protest against this change, Mittal claimed it was being done only to warn the public of what trouble lies ahead due to the changed CrPC. “How do we raise a point? We keep shouting, sending representations, letters, etc but no one listens.”


January 8, 2009


The views of Save Family Foundation on these amendments in CrPC are:

1. This is an insult to the Honb’le Apex court of India by Lawyers themselve. The amendments in the CrPC, sections 41 to 60A in the present bill are actually the formal introduction of the “guidelines for making arrest” by the Honb’le apex court in its various judgements like:
1. “SHRI D.K. BASU VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL [1997] S.C.C. (crl) 92” and
2. “JOGINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P. – 25/04/1994 (CITATION 1994 AIR 1349 1994 SCC (4) 260 JT 1994 (3) 423 1994 SCALE (2)662)”.

2. Lawyers are protesting just because it is a blow to their bussiness of extortion in hand and gloves with the state police. As the guidelines by the apex court were never followed by the investigating agencies and the arrest is just made on the whims and fancies of the concerned investigating officers but now these guidelines are being made a part of the Code of Criminal procedure of India , lawyers and police are feeling cold.
3. The amendments in section 41 to 60A are actually the basic human rights of any accused under the human rights convention also worldwide.

4. If the bar asociations, as they are saying (that these amendments are anti human and anti society as per them), are really worried about the litingants, they should have protested about the section 21(b) of the proposed amendment, which relates to CrPC section 309, which states that:


“the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for eeking adjournment”.

Although this provision is being to introduced to preed fast in a trial but this will rob the illiterate and the poor litigants from justice as they could not hire a reserve advocate if the advocate hired by them is genuinly busy in another court (more difficult now in Delhi after de-centralization of the district and session courts).


4. Compundability of adultery: Adultery. IPC section 497, According to this amendment, “The husband of the woman can compound the offence..- Now here again a woman is being treated as the property of her husband. What if the woman herself do not want to let the accused go, if she is a victim of the offence (as per the present lw woman is still being treated as a victim)?


5. The provision of a woman judge everwhere in case of investigation and trial of offences under IPC 376 to 376-D, is just an indirect way of creating gender discrimination in the judiciary as the demand of reservation of the women judges in the higher judiciary was straightforward rejected by the Honb’le CJI.


6. Why according to section 1(2) of the act, “different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act” for this act to come into the force? So, It is already anticipated by the so called law makers that these amendments will be opposed. So, as per the then political equations and negotiations, individual provisions will be picked up.