The half rights of man

Section 498A OF the Indian Penal Code has the distinction of single-handedly giving rise to a men’s rights movement in India.

Until a couple of years ago, these activists were called into television studios to be the whipping boys of the evening. Surrounded by feminists, and before they could complete a sentence, they would be pounced upon and pummelled with ridicule. I remember an NDTV anchor introducing one of them with a smirk as a men’s rights activist and saying, “Would you believe it?”

But they took the slights without blinking because most of them were direct victims of 498A, which kept driving more and more men into their fold. Added to the IPC to address dowry harassment, it is actually a great exemplar of what greedy lawyers can do to noble intentions.

Dowry is a palpable issue in Indian society and, even now, 30 years after this section came into force in 1983, women get tortured and killed by husbands and in-laws.

Under Section 498A, any complaint of harassment by the wife could mean at least three years in jail for the husband and his relatives. Good so far, but it also made the offence non- bailable. So they would have to compulsorily spend time in jail until a court decided to offer bail. This is where our divorce lawyers spotted an opportunity.

An average Indian is petrified of jail and that fear was a good negotiation tool. So, during divorce proceedings, lawyers would suggest that wives file a case under Section 498A.

A stint in the lock-up or the threat of one would have immediate effect in getting a divorce or better terms. And this began to not happen in exceptions. 498A’s wide-scale abuse has been recognised by the Government, the Supreme Court and even women’s rights activists, though most of them see it as something that must be endured for the greater common good.

Recently, because of its abuse, the Government decided to amend this section, and it will then be compoundable. It means that earlier, the wife could not take back the case even if she wanted to, but now she gets that option to arrive at a settlement. Consider the irony—if the problem is its misuse as a negotiation tool, granting the power to withdraw the case only serves to increase its misuse. Earlier she had no control over the case’s withdrawal, but that will now be on offer at the negotiation table.

There can now be open give-and-take using this law as an incentive. The solution to the problem is the problem.

It is hard to see how any of this can be resolved. Dowry harassment is a serious issue and society needs a strong deterrent in law.

But so is its abuse to the point that it is just not possible to ignore it any longer as corollary effect as was done for three decades. There should be punishment for the filing of false cases, but that will end up being used to target real victims of dowry.

Maybe, for all cases found to be false, they should only punish the lawyers instead of their clients. And make it non-bailable too.

About The Author

Madhavankutty Pillai

•