Kunal (name changed), a 26-year-old computer operator, came face-to-face with this brutal truth when the woman he wooed for three years, before marrying her in January 2007, declared only months after their marriage that she did not like old people. Kunal belonged to a close-knit family of three: his nani (maternal grandmother), his mother and himself. “What was I to do, throw the frail women who brought me up, out of the house,” he asks, distraught at the memory of a short but tempestuous marriage.
The situation grew murkier when his wife took off for her parents’ home on the pretext that her mother is unwell. She then lodged a complaint at the local police station, stating that her husband’s family had been demanding dowry and when she did not cave in to the pressure, her husband had abandoned her. “I was shocked; it was so out of the blue,” says Kunal. Upon meeting her parents for an explanation, he was categorically told: “ Ya to un ko pal lo, ya biwi ko (Make a choice it’s either your kin or your wife).” They also demanded a sum of Rs 10 lakhs.
Section 498A of the IPC, meant to protect a woman being harassed by her husband or his family, particularly for dowry, is increasingly being used to blackmail unsuspecting families. Priya Hingorani, former VP, Supreme Court Bar Association, while alarmed at the misuse, believes that the percentage of ‘con women’ is still miniscule: “There’s no point in making sweeping generalizations about a law that has protected a lot of distressed women.” She does, however, suggest that the offence be made bailable, in order that innocent families don’t unwittingly suffer.
Like an unfortunate Rohit (name changed) did, when his wife converted a dowry harassment complaint into an FIR. “I went crazy running around for anticipatory bail,” he recalls. Rohit, a 31 year-old who got married in 2005, felt his wife’s greed surface during their honeymoon in Singapore, when she, eager to shop in the malls, taunted him with comments like: “ Tum mujhe kya shopping karoege (One can hardly expect you to shop for me).”
When the insults piled up and threatened to overcome the middle-class engineer completely, he called for a heart-to-heart with her parents. “It was pointless; she obviously wanted to marry a rich guy and her parents twisted everything I said to insinuate that I wanted dowry to keep her happy,” he says of the meeting. Rubbishing her claims that she was physically tortured by her in-laws, he vehemently asserts, “My parents are old and weak, one look at them and you’ll know they just don’t have the strength to beat up a young person.”
Fortunately for him (as for Kapil), he joined the Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) for legal counselling as well as moral support. The forum, which was but an embryonic group on the Internet four years ago, is now a flourishing NGO that has provided a clear-eyed perspective to over 6,000 distraught members.
Swarup Sarkar, one of the founders, is saddened by the way lawyers and support groups magnify a woman’s avarice and make her believe she is fighting for what is rightfully hers. “These days, a heated argument over something trivial is enough for the wife to slap on charges of dowry and domestic violence,” he says, “and everyone else seems to be fuelling the fire.”
But for lawyers like Arvind Jain, who has also authored Aurat Hone Ki Saza, it is imperative for the law to protect the rights of women, in a country where, according to him, even the judiciary has a gender bias. “Only 4-5% of the dowry cases culminate into a conviction,” he says, explaining that this is because the judiciary is predominantly male, brought up in the same patriarchal mould.
He believes the anti-dowry law is not being effectively executed; a thorough but sensitive investigation of the situation by the cops should be mandatory, but that rarely ever happens. Also, if a case is false, the husband and his family can file defamation charges against the offender. But most families, in a hurry to get out of the legal wrangle, usually agree to a settlement outside court.
Asmita Basu of Lawyers Collective, a women’s rights initiative, finds the mere mention of the word ‘misuse’ a distortion of facts. She believes that a few individual experiences do not make for the larger picture. “The battered-woman story is an old one, so no one seems interested,’’ she says cynically. According to the National Family and Health Survey, only 2% of the distressed women in the country seek institutional intervention.
“Not all of them are complaints to the police, as women may approach local NOGs and family counselling centres. Of the complaints actually filed under criminal law, is it fair to assume that all are false?” she questions. Fervently stating that the problem lies not with the law, but with the execution of it, she says, “Individual grievances are a critique of a justice delivery system that is fraught with problems.” To the men claiming harassment, her response is cryptic: “Prove it in court.”
“I plan to,” says a determined Rohit, “because my wife is asking for 40 lakhs and I can’t possibly sell everything I possess, including my soul, to pay her off.” More importantly, if he gives in, “she will swiftly catch another unsuspecting man.”
Neil (name changed), a 38-year-old post-graduate from IIT, also faces a similar predicament. When his wife started behaving erratically after the birth of their child in 2004, he attributed the cause to postpartum depression. But then she left for her parents’ home one year later and “kept withdrawing money from my accounts.” Despite that, he attempted to restore his marriage under the Restitution of Conjugal Rights provision. She however, threatened his entire family with dire consequences, unless he settled for Rs 50 lakhs.
Hingorani suggests that in a situation where the wife is driven purely by greed it is important to expose her intentions systematically. Citing a case wherein the wife claimed her family had gifted the in-laws jewellery worth Rs 3.5 crore, and had subsequently demanded a settlement of Rs 5 crore, the lawyer says, “We asked her family to show us bills of the gifts.’’
However, reiterating the need for laws that protect vulnerable women, she believes that the only way to see through a person’s intentions is to have a dialogue with them: “Don’t blame the laws; blame our own inability to perceive right from wrong.”
(radhika.oberoi@timesgroup.com)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment