Mukesh Kumar Mishra | Institute of Law, Jiwaji University | 9th March 2020
INTRODUCTION
India is a country which follows various customary beliefs and has a long-established patriarchy system in the society. This fatherly type mindset encourages suppression of women and present women less than men in every aspect of life. Although the paternalistic outlook reduced over time, the philosophy of superiority of people remained unchanged. Women are limited to housework and are liable for the house and family. The statute which governs us and the related legislation represent this subjugation of women, according to the same opinion.
DOWRY PROBLEM IN INDIAN SOCIETY
The dowry system is the age-old pattern in Indian society. Originally it was the concept of laying the foundation for the bride and helping her to stabilize his future but in Modern days It has been the nub cause of the dowry deaths. The physical and mental ferocity of the husband and his family members led the woman to take her own life or to approach court to seek adequate remedy. But often the woman never reached court and had been the victim of dowry death.
“………According to a 2016 report by the Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, 7621 women were killed for dowry”. Dowry problem in India has its deep roots in Indian society and this curse will leave its roots by taking robust measures”[1].
LAWFUL PROVISIONS RELATED TO DOWRY DEATH
There are some provisions specifically mentioned in the Indian Penal Code, such as Section 498A[2] which came into existence in 1983 for the protection of women who were subjected to severe cruelty and trauma by their husband or his family members/relatives.
“……. Offence committed under this section is non-compoundable which means if the person gets accused than matter can’t be resolve outside the court. If the accused gets convicted then punishment would be up to 3 years maximum, and they would also be liable for the fine[3]”.
But this provision has been a hot topic lately because many women are taking illegal advantage of this provision.
CASE ANALYSIS
- Facts of the case
Rajesh Sharma married Sneha Sharma on 28th November 2012. At the time of their marriage, Dowry was given to the fullest capacity. But as we all know the dowry is the deep hollow well which can never be filled with any amount of water and in this case, water is Money. The family of the bride (Appellant) were not happy about the sum of the dowry given. They started harassing the complainant and also started battering and abusing her. After some time, husband left Sneha at his place because she ended her pregnancy. Afterwards, under Sections 498A[4] and 323[5] of the Indian Penal Code, she summoned Rajesh Sharma.
- Judgement given by the courts
The session court gave judgement in favour of the complainant and found her husband (Rajesh Sharma) guilty of the offence of cruelty under section 498A. But after the conviction of her husband She Summoned the family of the husband such as Parents-in-law, sister-in-law and her husband’s brother. The petition was admitted by the session court, Jaunpur, on 3rd July 2014. Unhappy over the summons of the court, the appellant went before the High Court. The court forwarded this matter to the mediation centre but it all went in vain. After a few days of hearings, the High Court found no justification in support of this petition and dismissed it.
“……. The main issue arose, in this case, was to scrutinize the constant tendency of dragging the family members in the crime like a broken piece of wood. The petition clearly stated that the complainant herself left the in-laws home and her mother-in-law was a house wife, father-in-law served as a government employee, now retired and her sister-in-law and brother of the husband had a government, and they were not demanding any kind of dowry from the complainant. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court after the dismissal of the appeal at the High Court[6]”.
- Issue Involved in The Case
In the case of Rajesh Sharma vs. In the state of Uttar Pradesh[7], the Supreme Court prescribed guidelines to curtail the wrong-use of Sec 498A. After the supreme court verdict many NGOs and women’s rights activist’s organization criticize this judgement. The key issue was it lawful to pull in the family members of the husband under this act and measuring the on the same scale and also how we can protect the innocent. There was no issue related to the granting of leave but the justification given behind it was not satisfactory and was somewhat flawed.
- Defect in the justification given by the Supreme Court
Dominance of patriarchy
This is highly deplorable thing to see that everybody is mentioning that in this matter the judge has applied the facts to his interpretation rather than looking at the underlying reality of the case. The judges also did not acknowledge that physical violence and dowry related offences are severely limited by law. Not once did the judges think about what the implications of a dowry practice law were. This belief derives from a patriarchal society that increases men’s domination and power with pride.
Feminist outlook: How women’s rationale is subjected inferior to men.
Women rights activists will strongly criticize this decision which indicates exactly how deep these male value roots are in our culture and also not easily shakeable. This decision also puts some light on the issue of how aggrieved woman lodge a complaint on trifling matters and can’t see the consequences of it. It shows that women’s acuity, shrewdness and many other skills are not on the same par as men. The women are trying their head to toe to safeguard their rights and on the other hand the courts are calling them “disgruntled”. This evidently shows that disputes beyond the periphery of ‘male stream’ will be characterized as aberrant. The court further stated that Indian societies have the long history of having harmonious family by some means it shows that wife’s role on the family was just to be a yes-woman. If we define the word “wife” this way then it suppresses the women from her natural right which everybody is entitled to have.
Realists’ perspective
However, the judges have stated that the law in practice is not what it looks like in theory. On the ground, reality is fleeting. Nothing can stay constant in society. So, there is a need to reassess the legal provisions and consider the real situations into account. The judge’s opinion was utterly imperfect because they were critiquing the disputes and stating how it has created a floodgate for No. of cases instead of providing a way out.
“……. Judges only want to look at records collected by the ‘National Crime Records Bureau’[8] (NCRB) which is a glimpse of the big picture i.e. the many analyses and surveys conducted by various organizations and NGOs show the ground reality of the issue. These figures show judges’ inclination towards men. Government agency data (like NCRB) shows that a number of suits filed having this cause of action, but it did not mention that out of Those large No. Of cases, the conviction rate is below 15 percent[9]”.
This reflects how many obscurities and complexities are present in Indian Judicial processes and “the male-dominant nature of Indian society preventing women from coming out of crisis and those who came out of that dark & deep sink-hole, termed as untruthful, the reason of which is improper Police inquiry to some extent”. Most women are victims of abuse and violent behaviour on a day-to-day basis and now this impulse is running in their veins. These traumas lead them to internalize these abusive behaviours, and they remain silent until the situation gets out of their hands.
The court issued some guidelines before the arrest.
- The Court has issued the guidelines to set up a committee for the cases related to dowry and the committee has the power to check the veracity of each case. Police cannot arrest the accused until the committee submits a report to the magistrate that the victim is delayed in getting justice.
- There are plenty of chances that the members of the committee, who are acting as a judicial body, can be bribed by the accused. The discretion of the judge is pretty much based on the background of the accused.
- This reflects the male dominant belief of the judges, and they have used this reasoning in many cases to validate their argument that Section 498A is being misused.
SUGGESTIONS
There are some important points for the judges to pay attention to in this case, which is to find more sources to justify their arguments and keep a positive outlook in mind that will help them cover both aspects of the disputes and will limit them to incline towards male dominant views. Because the real intention of making this law was weakened and now it’s barely serves the purpose.
“…. The legal battles fought by many female activists were buried and a structure of male values was built into it. It is for the court to evaluate the impact and intent of the statute and assess the argument against both parties and in comparison, to one another’.
CONCLUSION
The Indian judicial system has many flaws and lack of recognition and inequality in women’s rights is the worst of them. The decision in Rajesh Sharma v. Uttar Pradesh[10] shows how real justice is a far cry for women in Indian society. The decision also portrays the men’s-centric Indian legal system, which makes it harder for women to battle for their rights. Indian judicial authorities must strengthen women and the privilege of men and women should be ensured impartially. The decision has exacerbated the situation rather than taking measures to reduce the risk of dowry. Women who come out against these violence and vigorous practices are fearful or full of suspicion to rebel because they will either be kicked out of their homes or the judiciary will project them as angry feminists. Thus, the judicial system needs to re-examine the impact of the current law and the real intent to make significant changes if it is necessary.
2 WM16Highlights.pdf, , http://mospi.nic.in/sites/default/files/reports_and_publication/statistical_publication/social_statistics
/WM16Highlights.pdf (last visited Mar 3, 2020).
[2] Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, , https://indiankanoon.org/doc/538436/ (last visited Mar 3, 2020).
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1011035/ (last visited Mar 3, 2020).
[6] Rajesh Sharma vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 July, 2017, , https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182220573/ (last visited Mar 3, 2020).
[7] Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, supra note 3.
[8] NCRB Crime record Volume I 2017, (p. 26,27,28,)
[9] NCRB Crime record Volume I 2017, supra note 9.
[10] Id.
Leave a Reply