ATUL SUBHASH SUICIDE CASE AND MISUSE OF LAW BY WOMEN - SECTION 498A OF IPC AND HINDU SUCCESSION ACT OF 2005

There are currently two laws which are grossly being violated by women, although, these laws were originally made to protect them. And this, I write being a woman myself. Such violations affect real victims who acually needs the protection.

VIOLATION OF SECTION 498A OF IPC

In marriage, particularly in a country like India, 'domestic violence' is too common. And although, 'dowry' of late has been recognised as a criminal offense, a lot of it still happens behind closed doors. A combination of the two resulted in laws like 498A of IPC being framed, and the enforcement of the same. It was fine till the law was used properly and gave justice to real victims. But things got astray, when certain women found a loophole and began filing false cases. This has resulted in men becoming the victim instead. Recently, we had the Atul Subhash suicide case, where he left an almost hour long video and many written evidences as to the various false cases filed against him by his wife and in-laws and harrassments he faced, which led him to ultimately take his own life. There are many such incidents where this law has been misused by women, alleging false 'dowry and domestic violence' cases to milk out a hefty sum as penatly from the husband. Misuse has been rampant which has led to criticism and many pleas to get this law revoked. Even though Supreme Court has cautioned against any misuse or unnecessary harrassment, the law is still quite loose and the result is Atul Subhash.

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860 punishes ( 3yrs imprisonment and a fine) a husband or his relatives for subjecting a woman to cruelty which include physical violence, as well as behavior that causes mental pain or injury. The victims can approach court for protection orders which can prevent the abuser from committing further acts of violence, entering the victim's place of work or residence or engaging in any form of communication or contact with the victim.

VIOLATION OF HINDU SUCCESSION ( AMENDMENT ) ACT, 2005

Its evident, its too common in India ~ the existance of real domestic violence and dowry victims. However, as per the earlier Hindu Succession Act of 1956, the 'real' victims had nowhere to go if they underwent such abuse, as they didn't get a place in parental inheritance - since, sons used to get all the property/assets. Women were regarded as 'paraya dhan-someone else's property'; since after they went to their 'sasural-inlaws' after their 'bidaai-marital farewell', they were cut off completely from their parent's inheritence never to look back. But with growing instances of women deserted by their husbands or divorce and separations, they were stranded. As such the law was ammended to remove gender discrimination so that daughters too got share in their parent's property. It was mainly for such victims. However, there emerged a certain lot of women, who didn't face any problem in their marriage ( thoroughly enjoyed their husband's earnings ) or in-laws, yet, chose to harrass their siblings over property matters just because, they now had right in their parent's property too. There are instances where they get down to bullying even, especially if the family has no sons but only daughters. The married will come and taunt the unmarried and try to make their life hell by trying to chase out or frequently question and mentally harrass as to why the other daughter is living in the house or try to snatch her part of inheritance, and scheme things. They don't contribute or partake in maintainence of the property, but, wouldn't hesitate to harrass the ones who actually live and upkeep the place.

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, Sept9, 2005 was passed to remove gender discrimination in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Daughters of coparceners are now coparceners in their own right, with the same rights and liabilities as sons. Section 23 of the 1956 Act was repealed, which prevented female heirs from asking for partition of a dwelling house occupied by a joint family until male heirs chose to divide their shares. Section 24 of the 1956 Act was repealed, which denied widows the right to inherit their husband's property after remarrying.

A bunch of bad apples spoils the whole basket. So, because of certain greedy evil women such laws are being misused so blatantly; and, women as a whole ends up looking bad.