498a definition is not consistent..
Manav Kalia
(Querist) 08 December 2011
This query is : Resolved
498a as described in penal code: “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. The offence is Cognizable, non-compoundable and non- bailable." Now I had posted this question about why can't MIL file a case against DIL. Since the DIL is a relative of MIL's husband. The argument that DIL cannot harass MIL for dowry, is not valid, as 498a by definition is not dowry specific as given in the definition above. There are many other acceptable forms of cruelty that are non dowry related. But the generally accepted view among lawyers is only wife or DIL can file 498a. But the definition does not mention wife, DIL or dowry at all. Then why is this massive inconsistency there? Is this a badly worded law, or is the Indian legal system very flawed, or am I missing something from the picture completely. Since I asked the same in general forum, yet could not get any concretely satisfactory explanation there. I am asking this to the experts in law over here hoping some esteemed luminary of LCI must be able to shed light on the matter. Thanks in advance.... :-) This might seem a very redundant question, but the implications are enormous, if even one court in India allows a 498a case against DIL or wife by MIL, going purely by the very definition of the law, then I am sure ninety percent of the false 498a cases will be withdrawn soon after. It might not happen ever, but raises an interesting argument in the higher courts by MIL accused under 498a, that accuser culpable of same offense under same section as accused. For right now it seems to be an unassailable weapon in the hands of the wife / DIL. Which is harming Indian family life beyond repair. Please comment..
Nadeem Qureshi
(Expert) 08 December 2011
Dear Mirage
very well written
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 08 December 2011
Mirage.
I agree with you,
Even in Domestic Violence, DIL can file against MIL, but MIL, EVEN IF TORTURED BY DIL , cannot complaint against DIL.
THESE WOMAN PROTECTING LAWS , are damaging the Indian family. It is misused and :
Mirage, You will notice if you collect the data of cases of 498a in whole India, how many were genuine? How many of cases X= 4X
persons [full family] were arrested , and
how many were punished?
Answer is " Rarely"
It clearly indicate 99% of 498a cases were bogus, false, made with taking undue advantage of law, it also breaks family, harm the society at large, harass respectable family, old aged parents , and do not benefit anybody.
This Law must be scraped, or at least immediate arrest etc should not be allowed. Yes, Let Wife Prove it in Court. Let it be decided on merit, but it must not be Cognizable, non-compoundable and non- bailable.
It need changes.
Adv Shroff
08-12-2011
Shailesh Kr. Shah
(Expert) 08 December 2011
Make representation before government,parliament, law ministry for change.
Manav Kalia
(Querist) 08 December 2011
Thanks guys, @ Mr shroff, I think that DV can be filed by MIL against DIL, as long as the son is made respondent according to shoneeji, if that is the case, then it can't be termed biased. But I need to understand from experts here whether MIL can file 498a against DIL or not, because the penal code by definition it can be possible. I need an answer that if it is possible in theory or practice also? Thanks..
Manav Kalia
(Querist) 08 December 2011
To qualify further, I had discussed this with some lawyers in person. They were of the view that it can't be done. Even though they were not able to argue against the wording of the code. Probably has not been done because nobody had tried it. Forget going to MPs, government etc. Anna hazare case in point. Takes too long and vote bank politics takes over. We need to find one case where MIL has genuine grievance against DIL. And file 498a on her behalf. Lower courts would reject it. Take it up to supreme court. Argue on wording of the code, might work. Else think about filing a PIL against the legislature or something like that, use article 14, right to equality, stuff like that. Just brainstorming few ideas here, don't have legal background. Maybe experts can give some ideas..
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 08 December 2011
It would be proving valuable if you discuss the topic in forum section where all can give there view not only experts.
Manav Kalia
(Querist) 08 December 2011
Actually I had first posted this topic in forum. Was unable to get concrete answer, that's why I posted in experts. Will copy to forum section again..
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 08 December 2011
Mirage,
My dear friend, you are trying to find favor from a section from which no favor can be found.
Why don't you just start on your own, take it to SC and see, if you succeed.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Manav Kalia
(Querist) 08 December 2011
Shonee buddy, I am just a layman, dragged into this bizarre world thanks to my crazy xwife, you are the experts, can't something be done, doesn't the legal system have to follow either the spirit of the law or the letter of the law?? In this case legal system is blatantly ignoring both. How is it possible. This is India, not Somalia?? :-)
Manav Kalia
(Querist) 08 December 2011
Shonee buddy, I am just a layman, dragged into this bizarre world thanks to my crazy xwife, you are the experts, can't something be done, doesn't the legal system have to follow either the spirit of the law or the letter of the law?? In this case legal system is blatantly ignoring both. How is it possible. This is India, not Somalia?? :-)
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 08 December 2011
Its' can not be a layman question.
anyway its' only academic or you have some problem??
Manav Kalia
(Querist) 08 December 2011
By layman I meant I don't have legal education. Question is academic but it can be used in arguments in higher courts. Hope that makes sense. Btw is there any rule that 498a can't filed by MIL against DIL??
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 09 December 2011
I do agree with your last post clubbed with the entire discussion of the subject. clearly speaking, I have learnt many things from this healthy discussion.
Manav Kalia
(Querist) 09 December 2011
Thanks@Mr makkad.. Glad to help..
A. A. JOSE
(Expert) 09 December 2011
Dear Mr.Mirage,
Though late entrant into this interesting debate, I regret to agree with your interpretation of Section 498A quoted herein above.
Of course, for the sake of argument one can advance a stand that DIL is a relative of the husband of MIL, but I am of the personal opinion that this kind of argument would be too remote as to bring home your point of view and it cannot withstand a purposive interpretation in the court of law.
To me, considering the underlying objective of the section, there is no scope for any confusion in the wordings used in the said section according to which, proceedings can be initiated against:
i. the husband (of the woman),&
ii. relative of the husband (of the
woman),
who is sbjected to cruelty.
However, if anyone wants to test the issue upto the apex court, as suggested by you, it would, of course, be praiseworthy.
Manav Kalia
(Querist) 09 December 2011
@ Mr baroda, I appreciate your point, but then if the DIL subjects MIL to blatant cruelty, then why should the MIL not be allowed to use 498a for her protection as the law is made to protect her being a woman? Question is can we file some kind of a PIL against it?
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 09 December 2011
Dear Mr. Mirage,
I appreciate your interpretative skills. But my appreciation stops there.
You ask "Is this a badly worded law, or is the Indian legal system very flawed, or am I missing something from the picture completely."
1. Neither the law is badly worded nor the Indian legal system flawed in any way.
Surely, you have missed something which is very very important.
2. If only you had gone through the Statement of Objects and Reasons given in the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983, through which the Section 498A in the IPC was introduced, you would not have raised this question at all.
3. The Statement of Objects and Reasons reads as under:
"An increasing number of dowry deaths is a matter of serious concern. The extent of the evil has been commended upon by the Joint Committee of the houses to examine the working of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Cases of cruelty by the husband and relatives of the husband which culminate in suicide by, or murder of, the helpless woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction of the cases involving cruelty. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of dowry deaths but also cases of cruelty to married women by their in-laws.
"2. The following are the changes which are proposed to be made:-
(i) The Indian Penal Code is proposed to be amended to make cruelty to a woman by her husband or any relative of her husband punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with a fine. Willful conduct of such a nature by the husband or any relative of the husband as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave physical or mental injury to her, and harassment of a woman by her husband or by any relative of her husband with a view to coercing her or any of her relative to meet any unlawful demand for property as cruelty........"
If one keeps in mind the Statement of Objects and reasons as stated above, it will become crystal clear, that the Section 498A of the IPC seeks to protect the daughter in law and not the mother in law.
Manav Kalia
(Querist) 09 December 2011
Dear Mr Ramachandran, I agree with you, and if I had been aware of the material you have put up, I would not have asked this question. But as I have said earlier I don't have a legal background. Appreciate your inputs to this post..
