Latest news with #Section498A
Scroll.in
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Denying trans woman status of a ‘woman' violates Constitution, says Andhra Pradesh HC
Denying a transgender woman the status of a 'woman' is unconstitutional, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa in an order on June 16 said that a trans woman married to a man is entitled to file a criminal complaint of cruelty and harassment against her husband and his relatives under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. This section addresses cruelty inflicted upon a married woman by her husband or his relatives. The High Court made the observation while hearing petitions to quash a criminal case filed by a trans woman against her husband, his parents and a relative. 'To deny a trans woman the status of a 'woman'…solely on the ground of her reproductive capacity is to perpetuate discrimination and to violate Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution,' the order said. The High Court called such an argument 'deeply flawed and legally impermissible.' While Article 14 ensures equality before the law, Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 21 guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. The order also stated that a narrow view of womanhood based on the ability to reproduce 'undermines the very spirit of the Constitution, which upholds dignity, identity, and equality for all individuals, irrespective of gender identity.' The trans woman married the man in 2019 according to Hindu rites. She later filed a complaint with the Ongole Police, alleging that her husband left her and that she received threatening messages. The police filed a chargesheet against the husband and his family for cruelty under Section 498A and for offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In their petitions to quash the criminal case, the husband and his family argued that the complainant, being a trans woman, could not be considered a 'woman' under the anti-cruelty law. They claimed that since she cannot bear a child, she could not be seen as a woman in the 'complete sense'. In its order on June 16, the High Court drew support from several landmark Supreme Court judgements. It cited the 2014 National Legal Services Authority v Union of India verdict, which had recognised the right of transgender persons to self-identify their gender. The order also referred to the 2023 Supreme Court judgement on same-sex marriage. It noted that while the top court did not grant a universal right to marry, it unanimously affirmed that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing laws. Pratapa concluded that the complainant, being a trans woman in a heterosexual marriage, could not be deprived of her right to lodge a complaint against her husband and his relatives. However, while ruling on the substance of allegations of cruelty made by the woman, the High Court said that the claims were 'bald and omnibus' and lacked specific details. It held that allowing criminal proceedings against the man and his parents to continue would amount to abuse of the legal process. The court went on to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused persons. However, it clarified that a trans woman in a heterosexual marriage would have protection under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Time of India
20-06-2025
- Time of India
Man hides past divorces, loses current plea in HC
Kolkata: Calcutta High Court has set aside the divorce decree granted to a man 5 years ago on the basis of cruelty and desertion, as he hid his prior two divorces from the wife. The couple married in in Jan 2010 but it did not last more than six months. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now A child was born to them in Sept 2010. The couple have been living separately for nearly 15 years now. In 2019, the trial court granted the divorce, upholding the allegations of cruelty and desertion posed by the husband against the wife. While the husband claimed to have disclosed that he was a divorcee, the wife claimed that he did not disclose his two divorces prior to marrying her. The husband claimed that the wife left him after six months of marriage and kept complaining to everyone, including his employer, which led to him being fired. A part of his claim rested on the wife's purported neglect of household duties, her prioritisation of her legal profession as a practising advocate, and repeated threats to file false cases, which, according to him, resulted in a case under Section 498A of IPC. The wife's version was that she was driven out of the house while she was pregnant, and when she tried re-entering after giving birth, she was not allowed. She claimed that the husband questioned her "moral character". To support her claims, the wife submitted documents of the husband's two prior marriages and her approaching the protection officer in Howrah, showing her efforts to seek reconciliation and resume cohabitation. She approached the High Court, stating that the trial court "egregiously erred by equating her legitimate pursuit of legal redress" with cruelty, without any proof of it being false or with malicious intent. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now On June 11, The division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar held: "We conclude that a divorce decree cannot be granted to a party (petitioner) who perpetrated foundational cruelty (eg, deliberate marital deception) of greater magnitude than any alleged misconduct by the other spouse, even if the marriage is irretrievably broken down, as it would constitute a miscarriage of justice and violate the principle of 'clean hands'. " On the fact that the wife resorted to legal means for genuine grievance, the bench held that it cannot be automatically branded as "having committed cruelty" unless there is malicious intent shown.
Time of India
14-06-2025
- Time of India
Debate Over 498A Misuse Grows Louder
New Delhi: In four years since 2021, there was a very low conviction rate of 0.2% in criminal cases related to cruelty to a woman by her husband or his relatives under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Data obtained from the city's district courts through Right to Information applications, reveals that 4,655, or nearly 47%, of the cases were quashed by Delhi High Court while 736 resulted in acquittals, an indication perhaps of how the law is being used as a weapon against men. Advocate Manisha Bhandari, who practices in trial courts, high courts and the Supreme Court, said, "Only credible evidence can lead to conviction. It's time 498A was made a compoundable offence. There are enough indications that most of the cases are filed to exact revenge or due to resentment against the husband or in-laws. There often is no cruelty, but possibly love lost. The low conviction rate exposes the authenticity of the complaints. " Data related to 2021-24 Delhi from five of the seven district courts in Delhi — Patiala House, Saket, Tis Hazari, Rohini, and Karkardooma (the other two are the Rouse Avenue and Dwarka courts) — shows that of 9,950 cases tried, 23 ended in conviction. These seven district courts comprise the capital's 11 judicial districts of Central, East, New Delhi, North, North East, North West, Shahdara, South, South East, South West and West. RTI data was provided by Karkardooma from East, Rohini from North, Saket from South, Karkardooma from Shahdara, Tis Hazari from West, Saket from South East, Patiala House from New Delhi and Rohini from North West. In every judicial district, there are two judges in the 'mahila courts' designated to hear Section 498A cases. Altogether, 22 judges convicted the accused in 23 cases though in most, even relatives of the husband, including individuals with no direct involvement in the matrimonial relationship of the husband and wife, had been implicated. Shonee Kapoor, a lawyer and RTI activist who filed the application for information from the Delhi district courts, told TOI that Section 498A, originally intended to safeguard women from cruelty in matrimonial, has increasingly become a tool for coercion and negotiation rather than justice. It is invoked not for genuine redressal but to pressure the husband and his family into financial or personal settlements. "The judiciary, while aware of these patterns, often resorts to an endless cycle of adjournments. Instead of ensuring swift justice or decisive action—either to punish the guilty or to discharge the innocent—cases are prolonged unnecessarily," said Kapoor. "This systemic delay appears to function as an unofficial mechanism to push parties towards a compromise, irrespective of merit. The courtroom, in such cases, becomes less a forum for justice and more a theatre of attrition, where time is weaponised against the accused." Kapoor, who has made a representation for virtual investigation and trial of matrimonial offences, said, "Courts have time and again said that technology should be a means of ensuring justice to everyone. The time has come for all investigation and trial of matrimonial offences to be mandatorily made virtual. Virtual conferences, since Covid times, have become an effective way of dealing and delivering justice across the country. Expressing his concern that many of these cases which reached a conclusion in the last four years actually began 7-12 years ago, Kapoor said the defendants, among them senior citizens and women in the husband's families, faced trauma over a lengthy period. "If justice delayed is justice denied, then the routine delays in Section 498A cases amount to a denial of justice to the falsely accused men as well as to genuine victims," he said. Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj, a men's rights activist, pointed out to TOI, "In the last two years, 10 Supreme Court judgements expressed concern at the misuse of 498A. "What's the point of expressing concern when the court can't bring relief to people who are being harassed? Not a single woman has been punished for filing false 498A cases in the last 40 years. Is this equality? Men are dying by suicide after being falsely implicated, but our lawmakers are oblivious to the pain of such men and their families," said Bhardwaj. In Dec 2024, the Supreme Court accepted that the law was increasingly being exploited to settle "personal vendettas" or exert undue pressure on husbands and their families. In Jan this year, the Supreme Court said, "For bringing a case under Section 498A, the material placed on record should show that the ill-treatment was meted out by the husband or a relative, which is connected with non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. Taking the allegations at their face value in the FIR or even in the entire material placed in the charge-sheet, it will show that there is no averment or material to show that the appellant (husband) was in any way concerned with causing harassment on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry." In May 2024, the apex court ruled that married women couldn't use police machinery to hold the husband to ransom and expressed concern at IPC's Section 498A being replicated in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita without offering protection to the husband and his relatives against frivolous complaints. Quashing a 498A case filed by a woman against her husband, his parents, brother, and sister, Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said, "Police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a genuine case of cruelty and harassment. " The bench referred to the 2010 judgment highlighting the abuse of Section 498A by married women in matrimonial disputes and the court's request to the law commission and law ministry to revisit the provision. In Feb, Delhi High Court too expressed concern about women harassing their husbands and in-laws by misusing the anti-dowry law. Justice Amit Mahajan made the remarks while quashing a case registered by a wife against her husband in 2017 alleging he had made dowry demand and failed to return her stri dhan. As the bench noted, "Courts have taken note of the increasing tendency of implicating the husband and his family in matrimonial litigation in a number of cases. While the provision of Section 498A of IPC was introduced to combat harassment meted out to married women, it is abysmal to note that the same is now also being misused as a tool to harass the husband and his family members and gain leverage." Justice Mahajan also condemned the filing of such cases "by exaggerating and misconstructing actual events". Follow more information on Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here . Get real-time live updates on rescue operations and check full list of passengers onboard AI 171 .
Mint
14-06-2025
- Mint
‘Everything has been destroyed': Rajasthan man serves tea wearing handcuffs in protest against dowry case
In an unbelievable incident, a Rajasthan man adopted a unique way to protest against a dowry case by opening a tea stall in front of his in-laws' locality in Anta town and serving tea wearing handcuffs, reported India Today. Tea stall owner Krishna Kumar Dhakad's shop name is also unique '498A T Caf', referencing to Section 498A under which his wife had filed a dowry harassment case against him. Posters around Dhakad's tea shop carry slogans like 'Jab tak nahi milta nyay, tab tak ubalti rahegi chai' (Until I get justice, the tea will keep boiling) and 'Aao chai par karein charcha, 125 mein kitna dena padega kharcha'. Dhakad married Meenakshi Malav in 2018. Together, they operated a beekeeping business. In 2022, Malav allegedly left home without warning and returned to her parents' house. After few months, Malav filed cases against Dhakad under IPC Section 498A (dowry harassment) and Section 125 (maintenance). 'Everything has been destroyed because of a false case. For the last three years, I've been wandering from court to court in Anta for justice. I have an old mother who depends on me. I live under a tin shed and have nothing left. Many times I thought of ending my life, but then I remembered I am my mother's only support,' Dhakad told India Today 's sister channel Aaj Tak. He also said: 'I have decided that I will fight this legal battle impartially by selling tea in the very area where I was trapped by misuse of the law.' 'Every time I go to court, all I get is tareekh pe tareekh (adjournment after adjournment). Justice seems nowhere in sight. Now I am tired and have decided to fight this legal war by running a tea stall in Anta,' Dhakad added. According to the media report, Malav alleged, 'He asked for money from my father to buy land. When we refused, he beat me up. I then returned to my father's house. I'm ready for a divorce, but first, all the loans taken in my name must be repaid.'
Hindustan Times
07-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Hindustan Times
Aabhyanthara Kuttavaali movie review: Asif Ali ably anchors this misguided film on men's rights and Section 498A
Malayalam actor Asif Ali has been having a dream run at the box office with films like Kishkindhakandam and Rekhachitram turning blockbusters. His choice of roles has been astute, and that's one reason perhaps why the audience looks forward to every release of his. Debutant director Sethunath Padmakumar has now given us Aabhyanthara Kuttavaali, which, like the trailer depicts clearly, is the story about a husband (Asif Ali) who is charged with Section 498A denoting dowry harassment and domestic abuse. Sahadevan (Asif Ali), who is a government temp worker in a cooperative society, is over the moon when he is going to get married to Nayana (Thulasi) and is all set for a happily married forever after on their wedding day. Unexpectedly, Sahadevan ends up with a gift of 100 sovereigns of gold from his father-in-law, and when his wife files a case against him for dowry harassment and domestic abuse, his entire world turns upside down. Sahadevan and Nayana's marriage isn't going perfectly, but what compels her to file a case of Section 498A against him? Hauled off to the Anthikad police station, Sahadevan desperately tries to prove his innocence by recounting events that took place in their short marriage. Nayana is very aloof, preferring no intimacy of any kind with him and insists she wants to go to the Netherlands to study. She suggests that the gold her parents gave can be sold off to fund her education, and when an unsuspecting Sahadevan objects to this, things go haywire. Nayana gets back at him by injuring herself and filing a domestic abuse case. The director then takes us through how Sahadevan struggles to prove his innocence in the courts. There have been numerous real-life incidents when women have misused Section 498A of the IPC and framed their husbands, and director Sethunath Padmakumar presents us one such case through his film. He bats for men's rights, and Sahadevan, along with two other men (Peter and Makkar), who are affected by a fake dowry case, are the vehicles through which he highlights this critical issue. However, what the director has also – wittingly or unwittingly – done is show that these men are extremely good-natured and can do no wrong, even if they have small vices like drinking. The women, on the other hand, are uniformly portrayed as evil with shallow values. And the director uses numerous instances to highlight this as well. But can men and women just be painted as black or white with no shades of grey? To soften the stance about women, there is a narration of various women, including Nayana, about the issues they face – but none of these issues are the serious ones like real domestic abuse, sexual harassment or ill-treatment that they deal with on a daily basis. One must commend Asif Ali for doing a fine job as Sahadevan on the quest for justice. But Sethunath Padmakumar has taken one aspect alone in this story – how a fake case of dowry harassment and domestic abuse is foisted on a good man - and built a case against the law. The story is not juxtaposed against the real cases of scores of women facing domestic abuse and how they struggle to get justice. Moreover, claiming that Section 498A is a bane for all men as it is misused by women is regressive and a slight to all the women who have and are undergoing this plight. Aabhyanthara Kuttavaali has the right idea of talking about men's rights, but the director and the story are truly misguided.
