Hyderabad: Advocates in the city feel that women cannot be blamed for the alleged misuse of Section 498A of the IPC, which deals with matrimonial cruelty. They say that lapses on the part of enforcement agencies cannot be attributed to women.
These advocates were reacting to a directive of a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Mishra which asked for the guidelines issued by a two-member bench of the apex court to be revisited.
In July, an apex court bench comprising Justice A.K. Goel and Justice U.U. Lalit had expressed concern over disgruntled wives misusing the anti dowry law to initiate action against their husbands and inlaws.
It had directed that no arrest should be taken on the basis of such complaints without the veracity of allegations being ascertained. The two member bench had asked for the constitution of family welfare committees for the resolution of matrimonial disputes through discussions and negotiations.
Chief Justice Dipak Mishra wanted these directives to be revisited. “We are not in agreement with the judgement passed in the case. We can’t write the law. We can only interpret the law,” he said.
Women advocates practising at the Hyderabad High Court were of the opinion that the court should direct its anger towards law enforcement agencies, and not women.
Advocate Rachana Waddepalli said that as per the criminal laws, an arrest was not compulsory. “The police must investigate the matter and then register a complaint under the sections they deem fit,” she said.
“In most dowry harassment cases, the investigating officers arrest the accused without verifying the facts of the case and the evidence, and this has resulted in women being blamed,” Ms Waddepalli added.
Advocate Aruna Koppaka said that in a patriarchal society, Section 498-A brought respite to women who were subjected to violence. “In a majority of cases, newly-wed couples live in joint families. Whenever a bride is tortured or if she is thrown out of her matrimonial home, she is left with no option but to resort to legal action against her in-laws, who often connive with their son.”
Advocate M.V. Madhurima said Section 498A was a powerful provision. She said disallowing the police to arrest the accused whenever they feel that custodial interrogation is necessary or if there is a possibility of evidence being tampered with, and handing over the responsibility of deciding whether an offence has occurred or not to welfare committees will defeat its purpose.
