Bhubaneswar: The #MenToo movement that was started in Banglaore in 2018 is back and trending. This time again Bengaluru has been the epicentre and the tectonic waves have spread across. The redux of #MenToo movement happened Wednesday when a Bangaluru-based techie Atul Subash suicide note opens up on the law and its misuse.
Join the Whatsapp Channel to Get News updates in english
THE INCIDENT
Atul Subash, 34-year-old man from Uttar Pradesh died by hanging himself from the ceiling at his residence in Bengaluru, where he was a senior IT executive in Mahindra and Mahindra. Before taking the extreme step, Subhash recorded a 90-minute long video and left behind a 24-page death note alleging harassment by his wife and her relatives, with ‘Justice is due’ written on every page.
CASE DETAILS
As per details in 90-minute video, the Bangalore Techie alleges that his wife, Nikhita Singhania, and her relatives had filed as many as 9 false cases against him and his family. The case details below.
- Atul married Nikhita in 2019 after a match on matrimonial website.
- 2020 saw birth of their son.
- Wife Nikhita walked out of Atul’s home with her son in 2021.
- In 2022, she filed a case against him and his family under multiple sections – murder Section (302), cruelty by husband(section 498 A) , unnatural sex (section 377)
- In her FIR, she attributed her father’s death to demand of Rs 10 lakh by Atul Subash.
- But Atul alleges that she confessed that her father was suffering from heart disease for over 10years and was treated at AIIMS during the cross examination.
- Finally, the case was withdrawn.
- As per Atul’s note, wife and her parents demanded Rs 1cr to settle the case, and later hiked it to Rs 3cr.
- In his note/video, he has taken name of a Jaunpur Family Court Judge.
- He wrote, “when I said men were dying by suicide, my wife replied ‘why don’t you and the Judge laughed and asked her to leave the court.”
- As per Atul, the judge said “He must think about his family” and demanded Rs 5 lakh to settle the case.
- Why he did suicide? Atul wrote…
- “This incident along with instigation to commit suicide from my wife and the face of the laughing judge mocking my helplessness has rendered my faith in legal system destroyed and has prompted my action of committing suicide (sic),"
THE LEGAL SYSTEM
The suicide note of Atul has made the legal system of the country an abettor of suicide.
Legally abetting of suicide is a crime in both IPC and BNS. The new criminal laws Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita has prescribed 10years of imprisonment and fine for abetment of suicide; when IPC have mandated jail upto 10 years.
A glance at the sections slapped on Atul put the focus on Section 498 A (Cruelty on wife by Husband, his family). This is the most misused section, and as per Supreme Court and HC judgments – “This has turned a weapon in women’s hand to file false cases against husband and his family.” Because, this is a non-bailable offence and entails three year jail term.
SECTION 498 (A) IPC
This section was introduced in 1983 to protect married women from cruelty by husband or his relatives etc.
It says, “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."
With regard the ‘Cruelty”, it explains “cruelty” means
- Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
- Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or
- Is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand (means dowry).
MODI GOVT BRINGS NEW CRIMINAL LAWS – BNS
The Modi govt has brought a new criminal law Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Section 498 (A) becomes Section 85 and 86 in BNS.
Section 85 BNS: 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.
Section 86 BNS: It says cruelty” means:
- any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
- harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
A look at the sections of 85, 86 shows both are verbatim of Section 498 A of IPC, with some clarity on Cruelty definition in BNS.
SC JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 498 (A)TUESDAY
Incidentally, when the #MenToo is trending, a 2-Judge SC Bench has again commented on the grave misuse of Section 498 (A) by woman and their family against husband and his family.
The 2-Judge Bench of Justices BV Nagrathna and NK Singh on Tuesday has commented on the Section in Dara Lakshmi Narayana Vs State of Telangana. The bench said….,
- “The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State.”
- “However, in recent years, as there has been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife.”
- The bench adds, “Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife.”
- Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.
BOTTOMLINE:
- The first adverse comment on section 498 (A) was made by Bombay HC in year 1992.
- SC in 2003 in the case BS Joshi vs Haryana has ordered that in order to subserve the needs of justice, the inherent power under Section 482 of CrPC (which empowers HCs to prevent abuse of law by any court) can be exercised by the HC to quash criminal proceeding against Husband by wife – be it on basis of lack of natural legal evidences before court or even if by mutual agreement between the two.
- The above comment has been reiterated by SC today
- Earlier, Justice Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra had observed Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically.
- And the Bench too wanted the legislature to relook verbatim of 498A in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- It seems the #MenToo trending has been for the above reason.
