This article has been written by Maanyaa Gupta from Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat

BACKGROUND

Understanding Dowry

In 2021, India recorded approximately 6.8 thousand cases of dowry deaths, highlighting the enduring issue of dowry-related violence in the country^[1]. To comprehend this problem, it is essential to grasp the concept of dowry, as defined by the Dowry Prohibition Act^[2]. Dowry encompasses any property or valuable security provided directly or indirectly in a marriage, either by one party to another or by the parents of either party or any other person. While dowry initially represented gifts for the bride, it has evolved into the transfer of property or valuables from the bride’s family to the groom’s family, often under duress. This contemporary practice, influenced by factors like industrialization and consumerism, emphasizes wealth and social status in marriage negotiations, transforming marriage into a business-like arrangement. Paradoxically, educated men may even demand substantial dowries to elevate their social standing, while educated women sometimes have to provide a significant dowry, challenging the progress of gender equality^[3].

Dowry Deaths: A Dire Consequence

In this context, dowry death emerges as a dire consequence of dowry-related issues in India, occurring when the bride’s family cannot meet dowry demands. This triggers harassment, violence, and, at its worst, the untimely death of the bride. The manifestations of this tragedy range from physical abuse to horrific acts like bride immolation or driving her to suicide due to relentless torment. Some of these deaths are deceitfully disguised as accidents to avoid legal repercussions. Many wives endure this suffering in silence, fearing harm to their children or social stigma. Tragically, some husbands find it economically advantageous to end their wives’ lives and seek new marriages with higher dowries rather than going through costly divorce proceedings^[4].

In response to the alarming trend of women dying under the label of “stove bursts” in the mid-1980s, the government introduced Section 498A into the IPC in 1983^[5]. This section marked a significant shift in addressing domestic issues within intimate relationships, including mental cruelty, beyond dowry-related demands. However, the high bar for invoking Section 498A presented challenges, with many women suffering in silence and unable to file complaints due to various difficulties, including resistance from the police. While courts readily convicted for dowry deaths, applying Section 498A to protect living women from cruelty faced scepticism, often based on the notion of “disgruntled wives” misusing the law^[6]. This paper focuses on challenging the myth that these provisions are misused and need to be diluted. It examines several legal cases to argue that portraying women as dishonest or abusive of these provisions is unfounded and counterproductive, running contrary to their intended purpose and having a detrimental effect.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN INDIA

While the Union Minister in 2015 proposed to dilute Section 498A of the IPC, Maneka Gandhi, the Minister for Women and Child Development, opposed this move, emphasizing its detriment to women^[7]. She argued that Section 498A is the only criminal provision ensuring women’s safety within marriages, especially in a country where many women suffer severe domestic violence. To understand this argument in depth it is important to lay out relevant laws and acts in this matter.

1. Section 498 (A) of IPC^[8]: This section deals with cruelty towards women and prescribes that anyone, including the husband or a relative of the husband, who subjects a woman to cruelty, can be sentenced to imprisonment and fined.
2. Section 304(B) of IPC^[9]: This act pertains to dowry deaths. It states that if a woman dies within seven years of her marriage due to any burns or bodily injury, or she dies under unusual or suspicious circumstances, and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives in connection with demands for dowry, then those responsible for such cruelty can be charged with dowry death. If found guilty, they can face imprisonment for a term that may extend to life.
3. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005^[10]: This is a comprehensive legal framework which provides protection to women in domestic relationships by offering civil remedies.
4. Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872^[11]: This deals with the presumption as to dowry death. It presumes that a woman has died due to burns or bodily injury and that it was caused by her husband or his relatives. The burden of proof shifts to the accused to demonstrate that the death did not occur under such circumstances. This presumption assists in establishing the culpability of those responsible for dowry-related deaths.

IMPACT OF NEGATIVE NARRATIVES

Flavia Agnes, a prominent feminist scholar, asserts that negative narratives surrounding women’s utilization of legal provisions in India have far-reaching consequences. These narratives contribute to a hostile environment for those seeking justice and safety, often discouraging victims from coming forward and accessing the protection they require^[12]. This research paper delves into the implications of these negative narratives, with a particular focus on dowry-related violence and domestic abuse. It critiques the disproportionate emphasis on dowry-related issues and the prevalence of victim-blaming. Moreover, it highlights the potential consequences of weakening legal provisions, such as Section 498A, which may dissuade women from reporting severe domestic violence, trapping them in abusive marriages and obstructing their access to the intended safeguards. To underscore the relevance of this argument, this paper will examine relevant case laws.

Case Laws:

• Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar^[13]:

In this case, the wife accused her husband’s parents of demanding a dowry of Rs. 8 lakhs and other goods. When she confronted her husband about this, he sided with his parents and even threatened to marry another woman if his demands weren’t met. Consequently, she was forced to leave her marital home, leading her to take legal action. The husband, fearing arrest, filed for anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court acknowledged that Section 498-A’s classification as a cognizable and non-bailable offense had made it a contentious tool, often misused by dissatisfied wives as a weapon rather than a shield. This ease of misuse, it noted, led to the arrest of husbands and their relatives under this provision. Therefore, the court ruled that prior authorization from a magistrate was necessary for the arrest of the husband and his family members, emphasizing the importance of a fair and just process. As a result, the court granted anticipatory bail to the husband, highlighting the need to protect the rights of the accused in such cases.

• Sushil Kumar Sharma v Union of India^[14]:

In this case, the petitioner sought to declare Section 498A of the IPC unconstitutional or alternatively to establish guidelines to prevent innocent individuals from being falsely accused. The petitioner argued that this section was being misused, primarily to harass husbands, in-laws, and relatives through unfounded allegations. The court found that while there was a possibility of misuse of a law, it did not invalidate the legislation itself. The court rejected the argument that Section 498A was unconstitutional and noted that any amendments or changes should be made by the legislature.

• Rajesh Sharma v State of UP^[15]:

In this case, the court acknowledged the husband’s demands for a car and Rs. 3 lakhs after marriage, which led to him leaving his pregnant wife. This traumatic situation resulted in an abortion, and the matter was initially referred to mediation. Subsequently, the case reached the Supreme Court, where adverse comments were made about the potential misuse of Section 498A. The bench expressed concerns about women using the section to retaliate against their husbands and relatives. In response to these issues, the court issued guidelines aimed at preventing misuse, and these guidelines were later amended in the case of Manav Adhikar v. Union of India Social Action Forum.

SUPREME COURT’S APPROACH AND CRITIQUES:

The Supreme Court’s handling of cases related to Section 498A of IPC raises significant concerns and requires a comprehensive analysis.

Overlooking Lived Realities:

The Supreme Court’s approach appears to overlook the harsh realities of domestic violence, particularly the steady rise in proven dowry deaths. Despite this evidence, the court referenced the 2012 National Crimes Record Bureau data, which shows a low conviction rate for Section 498A cases^[16]. The low conviction rate does not necessarily imply that most cases are false. It may be attributed to various factors such as societal attitudes, traditional views of the family, and women’s reluctance to report abuse.

Misclassification and Potential Harm:

The Court accepted that dowry demands existed in cases but labelled them as misuse. This unjustifiably categorizes the provision as frequently misused based solely on a propensity for misuse, failing to consider the potential harm to women already enduring significant suffering. Misclassification of cases under Section 498A is perpetuated by law enforcement, media, legal professionals, and public opinion, which often labels it as the “dowry law^[17].” This narrow perspective distracts from addressing the broader problem of domestic violence. This limited perspective continues even in severe domestic violence cases, requiring the inclusion of a dowry demand in complaints. Most cases resulting in conviction are filed under 498A (cruelty) along with 304B (dowry death) or 302 (murder). This perpetuates cruelty by unjustly labelling women as ‘liars,’ ignoring the broader context of domestic violence and its associated injustices^[18].

Discrepancy in Conviction Rates:

The data suggests that the number of cases filed under Section 304B (dowry death) is significantly higher than those under 498A and has a high rate of conviction^[19]. This highlights a critical discrepancy – if those murdered due to dowry harassment faced cruelty, this raises questions about the justice system’s patriarchal mindset, which often fails to address the root issues of domestic violence.

 SOCIAL CRITIQUE:

The social critique of India’s domestic violence and dowry-related laws unveils a set of complex challenges that women face when seeking justice and protection. These issues not only highlight the systemic difficulties encountered but also underscore the importance of distinguishing between genuine cases and potential misuse of the law.

Police Apathy and Reconciliation Pressure:

One major concern is the reluctance of the police to take women’s complaints seriously, particularly when there is no visible evidence of cruelty. Instead of promptly registering FIRs, police often encourage reconciliation with the family, sometimes disregarding the urgency and seriousness of the situation. This approach can deter women from pursuing their complaints and seeking legal protection^[20].

Burden of Proof and Acquittals:

Proving cruelty or mental cruelty “beyond reasonable doubt” is an uphill battle for women, especially since most acts of violence or abuse occur without witnesses^[21]. This burden of proof creates a significant challenge and often results in the victim’s word against the accused. Furthermore, public prosecutors sometimes fail to handle such cases diligently, contributing to the high percentage of acquittals. This highlights the need for legal reforms and a more sensitive legal apparatus.

Reinforcement of Negative Aspects:

The Arnesh Kumar case^[22] is disheartening because it has reinforced the negative aspects of Section 498A without addressing the inherent flaws in the law. The law’s vagueness in defining “cruelty” and “mental cruelty” adds to the difficulties faced by women seeking justice. Misuse or occasional inefficiency of the law should not negate its necessity. Dismissing its importance discourages women who approach the authorities as a last resort after enduring unbearable cruelty.

Labelling and Narratives of Misuse:

Creating a narrative of misuse overlooks the harsh realities faced by many married women. It fails to acknowledge that women often approach the police and courts as a last resort in the face of unbearable cruelty. The notion that women file false complaints irrationally, without considering the consequences, is unjust. Despite the challenges, women file complaints out of desperation, even when they are pressured to “reconcile” and “adjust.”^[23] These cases may linger in courts not because they are false but because the accused, once released on bail, often abscond.

CONCLUSION AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS:

In conclusion, addressing these social critiques requires a nuanced and comprehensive approach. Legal reforms, improved law enforcement practices, and the recognition of the underlying societal challenges are essential steps to ensure that women seeking protection from domestic violence and dowry-related abuse are not further victimized by the system itself. Understanding the nuanced dynamics of both genuine and false cases is vital to strike the right balance and promote justice while discouraging misuse of the legal provisions.

The pervasive issue of dowry-related violence in India requires a comprehensive approach that combines legal reforms with a profound shift in cultural norms. These proposed solutions, based on a socio-legal perspective, encompass both legal amendments and a concerted effort to alter societal attitudes and behaviours. First, strengthening the law as written entails revising the definition of dowry to encompass “expected” gifts, providing clarity regarding the “in connection with marriage” requirement, and imposing limits on the value of gifts, thus closing a critical legal loophole^[24].

Second, enhancing the enforcement of these laws culturally necessitates bolstering women’s rights organizations, supporting programs that raise awareness about dowry-related issues, and actively promoting marriages without dowry exchanges. Resources should be allocated for organizations to investigate dowry complaints, ensuring their authenticity. Education campaigns targeting women, children, and the public should highlight the societal harm caused by dowry violence and inform individuals of their rights under the dowry prohibition laws. The media can play a pivotal role in altering perceptions by disseminating information about the devastating consequences of dowry violence.

These proposed measures acknowledge the need for legal reforms while recognizing the indispensable role of cultural transformation in addressing dowry-related violence in India. Such a comprehensive approach, while requiring time and dedication, is essential for achieving justice and equality for women who have endured the scourge of dowry-related violence for far too long.

REFERENCES

1. Statista, “Reported Dowry Death Cases in India 2005-2020,” Statista, www.statista.com/s632553/ (Accessed October 25, 2023). ↑
2. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 § 2. ↑
3. Tara S. Kaushik, The Essential Nexus Between Transformative Laws and Culture: The Ineffectiveness of Dowry Prohibition Laws of India, 1 Santa Clara J. Int’l L. 74 (2003), available at digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/v1. ↑
4. Id. at 82. ↑
5. Indira Jaising, “Concern for the Dead, Condemnation for the Living,” Economic and Political Weekly 49, no. 30 (2014): 34–38, www.jstor.org/24479736. ↑
6. Id. at 36. ↑
7. Flavia Agnes, “Section 498A, Marital Rape and Adverse Propaganda,” 50 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 12, 15 (2015), www.jstor.org/24482280. ↑
8. Indian Penal Code, 1860 § 498A. ↑
9. Indian Penal Code § 304(B). ↑
10. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, No. 43 (India). ↑
11. Indian Evidence Act § 113(B) (1872). ↑
12. Agnes, supra note 7, at 14. ↑
13. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 469. ↑
14. Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 281. ↑
15. Rajesh Sharma v .State of UP (2017) 3 SCC 82. ↑
16. National Crime Records Bureau, Crimes In India-2012 (Ministry of Home Affairs). ↑
17. Agnes, supra note 7, at 13. ↑
18. Agnes, supra note 7, at 13. ↑
19. NCRB- 2012 ↑
20. Kaushik, supra note 3, at 103. ↑
21. Jaising, supra note 5, at 34. ↑
22. Supra note 13. ↑
23. Kaushik, supra note 3, at 97. ↑
24. Kaushik, supra note 3, at 112. ↑