NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed that some men and their relatives may have been harassed by fake dowry harassment cases filed in misuse of Section 498A of IPC (equivalent Sec 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) by women but said that cannot be a ground to alter the law protecting women from cruelty in matrimonial homes.
"Just because of certain instances of misuse of Section 498A of IPC and Section 85 of BNS, can a sweeping statement be made that women are harassing their husbands and in-laws? Nothing can be further from truth. In a vast majority of cases, it is the women who face harassment at matrimonial homes. Hence, the law and the courts will deal with each case according to the facts therein," said a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh.
Petitioner NGO 'Janshruti' said it was approaching SC for judicial intervention to address "critical concerns surrounding matrimonial laws, particularly the misuse and application of provisions relating to maintenance, domestic violence and cruelty."
The NGO's counsel said SC must make Section 498A of IPC and Section 85 of BNS gender neutral to ensure protection of the victim of cruelty, be it women or men, in matrimonial homes and insertion of safeguards to prevent misuse of matrimonial laws, including mandatory preliminary investigation and mediation prior to arrest. Giving instances of extreme cruelty by husbands towards wives, Justice Kant-led bench said, "The allegations that the provisions have been misused cannot be a ground for forming an opinion by the court while exercising writ jurisdiction. Such allegations can be examined by court on a case-to-case basis."
On amendments to Section 498A of IPC and 85 of BNS, the bench said, "This exclusively falls in the domain of the legislature. Representatives of 142 crore people are in Parliament, and they will decide what shape the legislation can take. As constitutional courts, we can step in only when we discover certain vacuums in the legal framework."
On the petitioner's suggestion of enforcing the mandatory 60-day time limit for deciding maintenance cases, Justice Kant asked, "Do you understand how many more civil courts and magistrates would be required for this? Who will create the infrastructure, recruit judicial officers and staff? Dismissing the PIL, SC said, "It all depends on the financial health of the states. If the states are willing, then they can set up more courts in consultation with high courts concerned to speed up decisions in such cases."
"Just because of certain instances of misuse of Section 498A of IPC and Section 85 of BNS, can a sweeping statement be made that women are harassing their husbands and in-laws? Nothing can be further from truth. In a vast majority of cases, it is the women who face harassment at matrimonial homes. Hence, the law and the courts will deal with each case according to the facts therein," said a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh.
Petitioner NGO 'Janshruti' said it was approaching SC for judicial intervention to address "critical concerns surrounding matrimonial laws, particularly the misuse and application of provisions relating to maintenance, domestic violence and cruelty."
The NGO's counsel said SC must make Section 498A of IPC and Section 85 of BNS gender neutral to ensure protection of the victim of cruelty, be it women or men, in matrimonial homes and insertion of safeguards to prevent misuse of matrimonial laws, including mandatory preliminary investigation and mediation prior to arrest. Giving instances of extreme cruelty by husbands towards wives, Justice Kant-led bench said, "The allegations that the provisions have been misused cannot be a ground for forming an opinion by the court while exercising writ jurisdiction. Such allegations can be examined by court on a case-to-case basis."
On amendments to Section 498A of IPC and 85 of BNS, the bench said, "This exclusively falls in the domain of the legislature. Representatives of 142 crore people are in Parliament, and they will decide what shape the legislation can take. As constitutional courts, we can step in only when we discover certain vacuums in the legal framework."
On the petitioner's suggestion of enforcing the mandatory 60-day time limit for deciding maintenance cases, Justice Kant asked, "Do you understand how many more civil courts and magistrates would be required for this? Who will create the infrastructure, recruit judicial officers and staff? Dismissing the PIL, SC said, "It all depends on the financial health of the states. If the states are willing, then they can set up more courts in consultation with high courts concerned to speed up decisions in such cases."
You may also like
'Adolescence' Season 2 Update: Will we see more of Jamie Miller? Not so fast, says his onscreen mom
Champions League top scorer who Arsenal and Man Utd snubbed gets new release clause
Days of Mamata Banerjee-led govt numbered: BJP
Kate Garraway shares concern for JoJo Siwa's partner amid Chris Hughes bond
ITV This Morning's Alison Hammond and GMB's Susanna Reid both love eye-catching M&S blouse
