The debate around Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with cruelty to a woman by her husband and in-laws, has been ongoing for years. While some argue that this law is frequently misused, Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale of the Bombay High Court has shed light on the real issue: it is not misused by all but is largely misunderstood.

Understanding Section 498A IPC

Section 498A of the IPC was introduced in 1983 to protect women from cruelty at the hands of their husbands and in-laws. The law defines cruelty as:

1. Any conduct that is likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury to her life, limb, or health.
2. Harassment with a demand for dowry.

The offense is non-bailable and cognizable, meaning that police can arrest the accused without a warrant. This provision was meant to serve as a deterrent against domestic violence and dowry harassment.

The Misuse vs. Misunderstanding Debate

Justice Neela Gokhale, while speaking at an event organized by the Interactive Lawyers Association for Women (ILAW), stated that while there might be some cases of misuse, this should not overshadow the reality that many women genuinely suffer from domestic violence and dowry harassment.

She highlighted the deep-rooted patriarchal mindset that obstructs women from reporting domestic abuse. A popular phrase—“Doli me baith ke aayi hai toh Arthi pe hi jayegi”—reflects this regressive thinking, implying that a woman must endure all hardships in her marital home, even at the cost of her life.

The Challenges Women Face in Reporting Domestic Abuse

Despite the legal protections available, many women still hesitate to report abuse due to:

• Social stigma: Fear of being judged by society prevents many women from speaking up.
• Family pressure: Women are often pressured by their families to remain silent for the sake of family honor.
• Financial dependence: Many women are financially dependent on their husbands and fear being left without support.
• Legal complications: The legal process can be long and exhausting, discouraging many victims from seeking justice.

Are False Cases a Reality?

While critics argue that women misuse Section 498A to falsely implicate their husbands and in-laws, Justice Gokhale emphasized that false cases are often a result of necessity rather than malicious intent.

She cited instances where women seeking maintenance may file cases against in-laws, including distant relatives, to pressure the husband into providing financial support. However, she clarified that no woman would willingly drag her family into prolonged litigation unless she had no other option.

How Overuse Jeopardizes Genuine Victims

Justice Gokhale also acknowledged the issue of overimplication, where multiple cases lacking strong evidence are filed. As a judge, she shared that in a day, she might encounter ten cases where the ingredients of Section 498A are not met, and only one genuine case. Unfortunately, the presence of false cases creates doubt even for the real victims, making it harder for them to obtain justice.

This highlights the need for a balanced approach—ensuring that genuine victims receive justice while preventing unnecessary litigation.

Role of Lawyers and the Judiciary

Justice Gokhale urged legal professionals to offer practical advice to women instead of encouraging lengthy court battles. Lawyers should help women differentiate between:

• Routine marital discord: Occasional disagreements or chiding do not qualify as cruelty.
• Legal cruelty: Constant humiliation, verbal abuse, dowry harassment, or physical violence are clear cases of cruelty under Section 498A.

She emphasized that legal professionals should guide victims toward effective solutions rather than unnecessarily prolonging disputes.

Need for a Societal Shift

While laws like Section 498A exist to protect women, true change can only come from shifting societal attitudes. Some key steps include:

• Raising awareness: Educating people about women’s rights and domestic violence laws.
• Encouraging financial independence: Women who are financially independent are more likely to escape abusive relationships.
• Challenging patriarchal norms: The notion that a woman must endure abuse to save her marriage must be eradicated.
• Strengthening legal safeguards: Ensuring proper implementation of laws to prevent both misuse and underuse.

Conclusion

Justice Neela Gokhale’s insights offer a much-needed perspective on the ongoing debate around Section 498A IPC. While there may be cases of overimplication, the law remains a crucial safeguard for countless women facing real abuse. The key lies in ensuring that it is applied fairly, preventing misuse while prioritizing genuine victims.

By changing societal attitudes, providing proper legal guidance, and ensuring fair legal procedures, we can move towards a system that truly supports and protects women in distress.

https://wp.me/peEAVD-7I