Home > Parliament > Comments/Suggestions from NFHS to Rajya Sabha regarding amendment to section 498A of the IPC

Comments/Suggestions from NFHS to Rajya Sabha regarding amendment to section 498A of the IPC

PDF version–>Rajya-Sabha-Sub-Committee-498A

6th December 2010

Bangalore

To,

Shri Rakesh Naithani, Joint Director, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Parliament House Annexe,

New Delhi – 110001 Tel: 011-23035433 (O), Fax: 011-23794328

Subject: Comments/Suggestions from “National Family Harmony Society” regarding amendment to section 498A of the IPC.

About National Family Harmony Society®: “National Family Harmony Society® NFHS is a Non Governmental Organization (NGO) promoting the cause of “family harmony” and “gender equality”. It is registered under “The Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960” and is based in Bangalore. We have branches in more than 16 states and in abroad too. We have approximately 15500 members all over India. To know more about us please visit http://www.family-harmony.org / http://www.498a.org.in.

Honorable members of the Parliament have been raising questions in the parliament at regular interval regarding the heavy misuse of IPC Sections 498A, 304B, Dowry Prohibition Act and related laws. Please find some of the questions raised by members of Parliament regarding heavy misuse of women centric laws.

 

T a b l e – 1

Sl No Question number House Name of  Member Answered on Subject
1 1409 RAJYA SABHA SHRI MOTILAL VORA  01.08.2003 MISUSE OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT
2 1610 RAJYA SABHA SHRI R.S. GAVAI  16.03.2005 INCREASING NUMBER OF FALSE DOWRY CASES
3 2698 RAJYA SABHA SHRI ABU ASIM AZMI  22.08.2005 AMENDMENTS TO DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT
4 2805 RAJYA SABHA PROF. RAM DEO BHANDARY  23.08.2006 HARASSMENT DUE TO DOWRY ALLEGATIONS
5 3876 RAJYA SABHA SHRI MAHENDRA SAHNI  10.05.2007 AMENDMENT IN ANTI DOWRY LAW
6 4501 RAJYA SABHA SHRI SURENDRA LATH  16.05.2007 MISUSE OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACTs
7 1474 RAJYA SABHA SHRI BRIJ BHUSHAN TIWARI  03.12.2007 AMENDMENTS TO DOWRY LAWS
8 1696 RAJYA SABHA SHRI LALIT KISHORE CHATURVEDI  05.12.2007 PUNISHING PEOPLE FILING FALSE DOWRY RELATED CASES
9 2933 RAJYA SABHA SHRI KAMAL AKHTAR  21.04.2008 STIFFER ANTI DOWRY LAWS
10 1474 RAJYA SABHA SHRI BRIJ BHUSHAN TIWARI  03.12.2007 AMENDMENTS TO DOWRY LAWS
11 1073 RAJYA SABHA SHRI AMAR SINGH  10.03.2008 AMENDMENT OF ANTI DOWRY ACT
12 304 RAJYA SABHA ABU ASIM AZMI  20.10.2008 MISUSE OF ANTI DOWRY ACT
13 440 LOK SABHA SHRI SANAT KUMAR 28.08.2001 Dowry Prohibition Act and Domestic
14 1012 LOK SABHA Shri RAMDAS ATHAWALE 06.03.2007 AMENDMENT IN DOWRY ACT
15 440 LOK SABHA Shri SANAT KUMAR MANDAL 20.02.2009 DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT
16 2030 LOK SABHA Shri DALPAT SINGH PARASTE 30.11.2007 ABUSE OF ANTI-DOWRY LAW
17 193 LOK SABHA Shri RAGHUVIR SINGH KAUSHAL 16.11.2007 FALSE IMPLICATION IN DOWRY DEATH CASES
18 1181 LOK SABHA Kunwar REWATI RAMAN SINGH 21.08.2007 COMPLAINTS ON DOWRY BY NRIs
19 382 LOK SABHA Shri N CHELUVARAYA SWAMY SWAMYGOWDA 20.11.2009 MISUSE OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961S

 

Honorable Supreme Court and various High Courts have observed from time to time that these women centric laws are being highly misuse. Honorable Supreme Court had observed that IPC 498A is being used as “Legal Terror”. Some of the observation of the Supreme Court and various High Courts are compiled below:


T a b l e –  2

Sl No Court Case Number/Reported Year Between
1 Supreme Court Writ Petition (C) No. 141 of 2005) 2005 Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (UOI)
2 Supreme Court Appeal (crl.) 206 2008 Som Mittal Vs Govt. of Karnataka
3 Supreme Court Appeal (crl.) 1716 of 2007 2007 Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr
4 Supreme Court 2000 (2) JCC (SC) 657: 2000 (5) SCC 207 2000 Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and others
5 Delhi HC Crl.A.No.339-41/2005 2010
6 Delhi HC CRL.M.C.7262/2006 2007
7 Delhi HC CRL. R 462/2002  2003 Savitri Devi Versus  Ramesh Chand and Ors.
8 AP HC A. A. O. No. 1039 of 2001 2002 Saritha Vs R.Ramachandra
9 Punjab & Haryana HC (1990)2 Rec Cri R 243 1990 Jasbir Kaur vs. State of Haryanas
10 Supreme Court CriLJ 2993 2000 Kanaraj vs. State of Punjab
11 Karnataka HC 2002 CriLJ 3605 State Vs. Srikanth
12 Supreme Court 2002 CriLJ 4124 2002 Mohd. Hoshan vs. State of A.P.
13 Delhi HC 2003 CriLJ 2759 2003 Savitri Devi vs. Ramesh Chand
14 Punjab & Haryana HC 2003 CriLJ 3394 2003 Bhupinder Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and others
15 Jharkhand HC 2004 CriLJ 2989 2004 Arjun Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and another
16 Punjab & Haryana HC RCR (Criminal) 163 2002 Mukesh Rani Vs. State of Haryana
17 Delhi HC 2001 (2) JCC (Delhi) 86 2001 Anu Gill Vs. State & Anrs
18 Supreme Court AIR 2005 SC 1989 2005 Ramesh & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
19 Delhi HC CHANDER KANTA LAMBA & ORS
20 ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE Revision No. 88/2008/2002 2002
21 Punjab & Haryana HC 2002 Krishan Jeet Singh vs State Of Haryana
22 Orissa HC 2003 Benumadhab Padhi Mohapatra vs State
23 AP HC Criminal Petition No. 6642 of 2007 2007 Kamireddy Mangamma and others
24 Allahabad HC CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 3322 of 2010 2010 Sanjeev Kumar & Others vs State Of U.P.s

 

 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

  • Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
  • No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
  • Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
  • No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence or to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

 

In blatant violation of all the above rights, thousands of husbands and their families are arbitrarily arrested every year, without evidence or investigation, under IPC Sections 498A, 304B, Dowry Prohibition Act, and related wife-centric laws which presume that the accused are “guilty until proven innocent”.

National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has noted the misuse of dowry laws, arrest of innocent individuals and the resultant overcrowding of prisons. NHRC has urged the judiciary and law enforcement agencies to take measures against these abuses. High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court have condemned the misuse of dowry laws. Various police authorities had issued standing instructions vide memo to check arbitrary arrests but they are rarely followed in police stations. DGP’s of various states had also issued circulars to implement 11 guidelines issued by Honorable Supreme Court of India regarding arrests and detention of Individuals in Cr WP No. 539/1986 and Cr WP No.592/1987. By taking note of the heavy misuse of the 498A IPC, recently on October 20, 2009, Union Ministry of Home Affairs had issued an advisory to all the state Governments and Union Territories. National Commission of Human Rights also has issued guidelines regarding arrests.

Nevertheless, abuse of police powers continues and unnecessary arrests have only been growing in India. Police routinely enter people’s homes at ungodly hours, take accused men and women into custody, and incarcerate them in the name of “protecting women from cruelty and harassment”. Innocent citizens are illegally detained, humiliated, subjected to mental and physical torture, blackmail and extortion. The honor and reputation of these accused individuals is simultaneously attacked through media trial and unrestrained slander by women’s organizations every day. Thousands of men and women have been driven to suicide due to the trauma of false cases, arrest, prolonged trials and the resultant humiliation and financial troubles they have to endure.

According to statistics published by the National Crime Records Bureau in 2007 alone, an overwhelming 94% of the individuals arrested under IPC Section 498A were found not guilty. A closer look at individual cases under Section 498A reveals that arrests are made by lower cadre police officials without proper justification and only with the intent of terrorizing innocent citizens and extorting money from them under the threat of imprisonment and long-drawn legal battles.

Our numerous pleas to the Government of India to stop arbitrary arrests of citizens under IPC Section 498A have fallen on deaf ears. On the other hand, new laws are always on the anvil (sexual assault, work place harassment, acid attacks etc.) which stress on immediate arrest of men upon mere accusations made by women.

While it is amply clear that under the prevailing circumstances, arrest is inevitable for any man facing allegations of abuse or assault, it is imperative that innocent citizens are prepared to go to jail even if they committed no crime. Ordinary law abiding citizens and their kin should be freed from the fear of jail and the concomitant feelings of humiliation and suffering so that they do not drive themselves into depression, ruin their health or end their own lives.

In spite of All round coverage by Media regarding heavy Misuse of IPC 498A, questions in the parliament by honorable MPs, Critical remarks by various HCs and SC, Observation by NHRC, advisories issued by your ministry from time to time, State Governments are not taking any steps to prevent the heavy misuse of IPC Sections 498A, 304B, Dowry Prohibition Act and related laws. These laws are so biased and dangerous that any innocent can become victim just on a false complaint by a woman. Even celebrities like Pakistani Cricketer Shoaib Malik and Former Union Minister Arjun Singh have not been spared have been falsely implicated under these laws.

COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS/RECCOMENDATIONS/REASONING/OBJECTION

 

  1. Make 498A IPC Gender neutral
    1. a.   NFHS Objection: Only a wife can make a complaint under IPC 498A against husband. Husband and his family members have no right to complain under 498A IPC even though if they were harassed and tortured by daughter-in-law. 
    2. b.   NFHS reasoning: IPC 498A was introduced long back when the social situation and circumstance were totally different in India. This was around 36 years back. Now the reality is women are highly educated, working and financially independent. It is universal truth that laws cannot be constant. Law needs changes as and when society evolves. Normally a wife in their complaint to the police alleges that her in-laws had been harassing her for dowry. It is even absurd to think that age old parent who might be suffering from various ailments and dieses and are physically weak can harm or harass young daughter-in-law who is educated and physically strong.
    3. c.   NFHS Suggestion: Make 498A IPC Gender neutral so that such husbands who are victims of cruelty from their wives can also lodge complaint. Hence NFHS suggests to consider making this IPC section gender neutral so such husbands who are victim of cruel behavior can also lodge complaint.

 

  1. Bring 498A IPC under civil law
    1. a.   NFHS Objection:  IPC 498A is under criminal law even though it deals with a dispute, which is of matrimonial in nature.
    2. b.   NFHS reasoning: E.g the proceedings under section 125 of the CrPC (even though is criminal procedure code) are basically civil in nature as had been held by Honorable Supreme Court and the trial is conducted in the Family court as it deals with maintenance to wives and parents. Honorable Delhi High court in Narender Kumar And Anr. vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) [Along With Crl. Appeal Nos. 748, 749 And 787/2004] held that “A failed marriage is not a crime however, the provisions of Section 498A are being used to convert failed marriages into a crime and the people are using this as tool to extract as much monetary benefit as possible.” Hence a failed marriage must not be criminalized.
    3. c.   NFHS Suggestion: Bring the IPC 498A under civil law because it deals with matrimonial dispute.

 

  1. Complaint should be made to magistrate not police
    1. a.   NFHS Objection:  Under IPC 498A complaint is made to the police.
    2. b.   NFHS reasoning: Since IPC 498A is currently a penal code and hence complaint has to be lodged in the police station and police carries the investigation. Our police system who deals with criminals, also treat a complaint under IPC 498A in similar fashion and husband and his family has to undergo humiliation, harassment, torture, mental agony and the trauma of arrest and subsequent pain of undergoing Judicial Custody due to such arbitrary arrests on a false complaint.
    3. c.   NFHS Suggestion: Hence NFHS suggests that the role of police should be totally removed in a dispute, which is of matrimonial in nature, and the complaint should be lodged only directly to magistrate.

 

  1. Introduce heavy punishment in case of misuse of 498A IPC
    1. a.   NFHS Objection: There is no punishment for the complainant if the complaint is found false and the court acquits husband and his family members.
    2. b.   NFHS reasoning: While any law is made by Honorable parliament with good intention but much needs to be desired when the law made with good intention gets misused. Data obtained from NCRB, New Delhi shows that only 2% complaint under 498A IPC actually ends in conviction. Thus clearly indicating that most of the complaints are found false and are filed at the heat of the moment with exaggeration at the instigation of family members and relatives to take revenge. As Honorable Supreme court had in 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.”.
    3. c.   NFHS Suggestion: Introduce heavy punishment of 3 years of imprisonment if complaint is found false. Hence NFHS suggests that a punishment clause must be added to IPC 498A so that people will have fear before filing a false complaint.

 

  1. Make 498A IPC bailable
    1. a.   NFHS Objection: As soon as a complain is made, the tendency of the police is to arrest as many people named in the FIR saying it is non bailable.
    2. b.   NFHS reasoning: Once husband is arrested then any chance of compromise or reconciliation is NIL. Honorable Supreme Court of India in “1994 AIR 1349 1994 SCC (4) 260 JT 1994 (3) 423 1994 SCALE (2) 662” dated “25/04/1994” by Honorable Former Chief Justice VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. held that “No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified.”
    3. c.   NFHS Suggestion: NFHS suggests that to make 498A IPC bailable.

 

  1. Tendency to include as many people as accused in 498A IPC should be stopped
    1. a.   NFHS Objection: There is a tendency to implicate each and every relative of the husband in the FIR.
    2. b.   NFHS reasoning: IPC 498A must be amended in such a way so that tendency to name as many relatives in the FIR is curbed. This has become a trend that in case of a matrimonial dispute due to whatever reason wife and her parent rush to the police station and name as many relatives with an intention to take revenge. Honorable Supreme court in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1512 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4684 of 2009) Preeti Gupta & Another …Appellants Versus State of Jharkhand & Another ….Respondents JUDGMENT held that “The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection”.
    3. c.   NFHS Suggestion: Hence NFHS suggests 498A IPC should be amended in such a way that only at the most only husband should be named in the FIR.

 

  1. Tendency to make false exorbitant claim in 498A IPC must be stopped
    1. a.   NFHS Objection: Exorbitant claims are made that huge sum of cash was given as dowry without any proof or evidence.
    2. NFHS reasoning: It has become a standard practice that in most of the complaint false claims are made that huge amount of sum was given as dowry even though the financial status of the wife or her parent is nowhere close to that standard. Such false claim of the girl and her parent is taken as gospel of truth and FIR and subsequently chargesheet is registered against all those named in the FIR. The result is all those named in the FIR have to run around the corridors of the courts as the trial takes minimum of 7-8 years. Honorable Delhi High Court in CRL.M.C.7262/2006 held that “Now-a-days, exorbitant claims are made about the amount spent on marriage and other ceremonies and on dowry and gifts. In some cases claim is made of spending crores of rupees on dowry without disclosing the source of income and how funds flowed. I consider time has come that courts should insist upon disclosing source of such funds and verification of income from tax returns and police should insist upon the compliance of the Rules under Dowry Prohibition Act and should not entertain any complaint, if the rules have not been complied with. The Metropolitan Magistrates should take cognizance of the offence under the Act in respect of the offence of giving dowry whenever allegations are made that dowry was given as a consideration of marriage, after demand. Courts should also insist upon compliance with the rules framed under the Act and if rules are not complied with, an adverse inference should be drawn. If huge cash amounts are alleged to be given at the time of marriage which are not accounted anywhere, such cash transactions should be brought to the notice of the Income Tax Department by the Court so that source of income is verified and the person is brought to law. It is only because the Courts are not insisting upon compliance with the relevant provisions of law while entertaining such complaints and action is taken merely on the statement of the complainant, without any verification that a large number of false complaints are pouring in.
    3. c.   NFHS Suggestion: NFHS recommends that 498A IPC must be amended in such a way that Income Tax returns and PAN card details of the wife and her parents should be mandatory before registering FIR.

 

  1. Involve Dowry prohibition officer in case of a complaint under 498A IPC
    1. a.   NFHS Objection: Dowry prohibition officers are not at all being involved in this process.
    2. b.   NFHS reasoning: It has become a standard practice that in most of the complaint false claims are made that many articles were given to the husband and his relative as dowry during the marriage without any proof or evidence. Dowry prohibition officer must file an affidavit to the court with proof and evidence of the claims of the wife regarding the dowry exchange.
    3. c.   NFHS Suggestion: NFHS recommends that 498A IPC must be amended in such a way that till the dowry prohibition officer files an affidavit to the court no arrest should be made.

 

  1. Marriages are not registered in India
    1. a.   NFHS Objection: Most of the marriages are not being registered still in India.
    2. NFHS reasoning: Many marriages are not being registered in India. The court should not entertain complaint if the marriage was not registered. All marriage certificates must clearly specify any stridhan or dowry, which was given to the wife or to the husband including cash or any articles.
    3. NFHS Suggestion: NFHS recommends that 498A IPC must be amended in such a way that no complaint should be entertained if marriage certificate is not produced.

 

  1. Giving dowry is also crime
    1. a.   NFHS Objection: Giving dowry is also a crime.
    2. NFHS reasoning: As per section 3 of the Dowry prohibition act, giving dowry is also a crime. In most of the false complaints wife and her parents claim that they have given dowry at the time of marriage. Most of such claims are false and are made only with an intention to arrest husband and his family members. If simultaneously a FIR is also booked against wife and her parent then it will instill fear among them not to lodge false complaint. Honorable Delhi High Court in CRL.M.C.7262/2006 held that “I consider where these kinds of allegations are made, the police should simultaneously register a case under Dowry Prohibition Act (in short, the Act) against the parents of the complainant as well, who married their daughter despite demand of dowry. Section 3 of the Act prohibits giving and taking of dowry. If a woman of grown up age and well educated gets married to a person despite dowry demand, she and her family becomes accomplice in the crime under Dowry Prohibition Act.”
    3. NFHS Suggestion: NFHS recommends that 498A IPC must be amended in such a way that immediately a FIR against wife and her parents should also be for “Giving dowry”.

 

  1. Encourage mediation/reconciliation before filing FIR
    1. a.   NFHS Objection: There are no attempt made by the police for reconciliation or mediation whenever they receive a complaint from wife and her parent alleging dowry harassment and invoking section 498A of the IPC.
    2. NFHS reasoning: Honorable Supreme Court in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1512 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4684 of 2009) Preeti Gupta & Another …Appellants Versus State of Jharkhand & Another ….Respondents held that “It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive.” A large number of disputes can be solved without filing a case if the authorities make a fair attempt to resolve the dispute. Wives who are in matrimonial dispute with husband are wrongly advised to use this section and once a case is registered then any possibility of reunion between husband and wife becomes NIL. Honorable Supreme Court in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1512 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4684 of 2009) Preeti Gupta & Another …Appellants Versus State of Jharkhand & Another ….Respondents held that “It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether.”
    3. NFHS Suggestion: NFHS recommends that 498A IPC must be amended in such a way that as soon as authorities under 498A IPC receive a complaint immediately both the parties should be sent to the mediation center to so that the dispute can be sorted out amicably.

 

  1. 498A IPC must be tried in fast track court
    1. a.   NFHS Objection: A trial under 498A IPC takes minimum of 5-8 years in the lower court.
    2. NFHS reasoning: It is a common knowledge that a trial under 498A IPC takes a minimum of 5-8 years in the trial court and if the matter is appealed to the session court, High court and Supreme Court it can take around 15-20 years. Husband and his relatives spend a significant portion of their life running around the corridors of the court, police station and lawyer’s office.
    3. NFHS Suggestion: NFHS recommends that 498A IPC must be amended in such a way that that 498A IPC should be tried in the fast track court with a mandate to deliver judgment in 60 days as is the case in Domestic Violence Act.

 

  1. Avoid double jeopardy
    1. a.   NFHS Objection: Wife makes identical allegations in 498A IPC, Domestic Violence and CrPC 125 cases.
    2. NFHS reasoning: Apart from 498A IPC wife also file a case of Domestic Violence and CrPC 125 against husband to seek civil relief like maintenance, residence etc. It has become a trend that normally the allegation of the wife against husband in the Domestic violence case is identical to those mentioned in the 498A IPC. Husband has to run from one court to another to defend himself innocent for the same set of allegations. Since the allegations in both the cases are similar hence both Domestic violence case and 498A IPC must be combined together so that a lot of harassment in the form of running around the courts can be reduced. It will not only harassment against husband and his family is reduced but also it will save a significant time of the court thus bringing down pendency.
    3. NFHS Suggestion: NFHS recommends that 498A IPC must be amended in such a way that to avoid harassment to husband and his family from double jeopardy all cases must be clubbed together.

 

  1. No arrests of children and grand parents
    1. a.   NFHS Objection: We object to the instances of arrest of children and grand parents on a complaint of 498A IPC.
    2. b.   NFHS reasoning: It is a common knowledge that there are hundreds of incident where on a mere complaint innocents school going children, pregnant sister-in-laws and grand parents had been arrested and sent to Judicial Custody. Honorable Supreme Court of India in “1994 AIR 1349 1994 SCC (4) 260 JT 1994 (3) 423 1994 SCALE (2) 662” dated “25/04/1994” by Honorable Former Chief Justice VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. held that “No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified.”
    3. c.   NFHS Suggestion: NFHS recommends that 498A IPC must be amended in such a way that children and grandparents and other relatives must not be arrested.

 

  1. Stop legal extortion
    1. a.   NFHS Objection: 498A IPC is being used for legal extortion
    2. b.   NFHS reasoning: Due to matrimonial disputes women lodge complaint under 498a and later they deny to give divorce to husband when he approaches saying that marriage is on rocks. Women take such double standard which are completely different to each other. It doesn’t make sense for a person to ride on 2 horses at the same time, which are going in opposite directions, unless there is a hidden agenda. Often these women drag the divorce cases in order to harass their husbands so that he will end up paying huge amounts as settlement amount or alimony. This is nothing but legal extortion and legal blackmailing.
    3. c.   NFHS Suggestion: If anytime during or after the registration of the complaint under 498a or during the mediation/reconciliation courses before the registration of the case, wife expresses her wish to deny the divorce to her husband or if she wishes to continue to live with him then the 498a case should be declared null and void. If wife wishes to continue the case under 498a and also wishes to continue to live with him, then husband should be made eligible for automatic divorce.

 

 

P Suresh, President,                                               M Mahesh, General Secretary,

9880141531                                                                    9731569970

National Family Harmony Society                               National Family Harmony Society

Advertisements
Categories: Parliament
  1. Sandeep Shirke
    December 22, 2010 at 4:34 am

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    My wife has lodged a complaint (498A Case) against my family and my both marriaged sister. We got a bail order for 5 persons. Can you please suggest me any form for discharging my parent who are old (My mother has cancer) and my sister who has already marriaged.
    Please reply me.

    With thanks and regards
    Sandeep Shirke

  2. super
    December 28, 2010 at 7:54 am

    sir, very good compilation of the practical and valid points that you have suggested, in this regard, i would like to give one more strong point that the valid time limit for filing the case is completion of 7 years of marriage that should be limited/restricted upto 3-5 years, because it is not feasible in this modern time to wait for such a long time (seven years) after marriage. And if the case is filed under 498A IPC after the lapse of this stipulated time period, it should be treated as null and void or should be registered under DV Act.
    thanking you in anticipation.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: