Bharat Express

Court On Misuse Of Key Law: “Meant To Strike Out Dowry Menace, But…”

While considering requests made by a man and his family contesting criminal charges brought against him by his estranged wife, the high court made some pointed observations.

Dowry Menance

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) section 498A, which is meant to shield women from abuse by their husbands or his family, has been misused by certain women, according to the Calcutta High Court, who stated this on Monday.

While considering requests made by a man and his family contesting criminal charges brought against him by his estranged wife, the high court made some pointed observations.

In order to eradicate the dowry issue from society, section 498A was enacted.However, it has been noted in numerous instances that this provision has been abused to foment new legal terrorism. The court ruled that the de facto plaintiff cannot substantiate all instances of the harassment and torture listed in the concept of security under section 498A.

Also Read: Psychological Impact Of Domestic Abuse On Children

The criminal proceedings started by a lower court on the basis of the woman’s complaint were cancelled by a single bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta, who noted that the medical evidence on file and witness statements did not establish any offence against the man and his family.

The de facto complainant only uses her version to support the actual claim she made against the husband. It does not support any medical or documentary proof, the court concluded.

The law permits complainants to make criminal complaints, but they must be supported by convincing evidence, the statement read.

Also Read: 22 August, 2023: Numerology Predictions As Per Your Lucky Number

The pair had been living separately from the man’s family since the beginning, the court also noted. “The allegations made in the complaint petition are false; the complainant has never been subjected to an assault or act of torture. Since the woman never intended to live with her in-laws after the marriage, the husband petitioner found a separate place for them to live and they are currently doing so, according to the court.