WOMEN AND LAW

Marriage, Violence & Gender

Neutrality: A Legal Analysis

EXAMINING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK, KEY CASE LAWS & THE

DEBATE ON GENDER NEUTRALITY.

PRESENTED BY: DENNIS KB; VIDHYA KS;VIMAL S RAJ;MOHIT G; SANJANA R RAO; LOHAN AND SHASHANK S
 Introduction
Question : Why does the law provide special
protection to Women in marriage?

Historically, marriage has often placed women in a vulnerable

position—socially, economically, and legally. Even today,
many women face domestic violence, dowry harassment, and
emotional abuse, often with limited means to escape. Laws
like Section 498A IPC (cruelty & harassment), the Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, and Section 304B IPC (dowry death) were
created to safeguard them. But are these laws enough? Or
are they sometimes misused? The debate continues,
especially with issues like the marital rape exception and
calls for gender-neutrality. Let’s explore these questions and
analyze how the law balances protection and fairness."

"A marriage should be a safe haven, not a legal

shield for abuse."
 1. Violence in Marriage: Legal Framework & Challenges
2. Marital Rape: The Legal Dilemma
3. Section 498A IPC: Protection Against Cruelty in Marriag
e

CONTENT 4. Section 498A - protection against sexual harassment an

d dowry related offences
5. Case Study: Shiv Charan v. State of MP
6. Case Study: Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)
7. Gender Neutrality in Section 498A: Need for Reform?
Legal Protections for Women Against Violence in
Marriage
Section 85 of The Domestic Dowry
the Bharatiya Violence Act, Prohibition Section 375
Nyaya Sanhita 2005 Act, 1961 & IPC (Marital
(BNS) Section 80 Rape
– Civil law
equivalent to equivalent to Exception)
providing
Section 498A Section 304B
protection – Marital
IPC
orders, IPC – rape is not
– Punishes
Criminalizes
cruelty by maintenance, criminalized if
dowry-related
husband/in-laws and residence the wife is
harassment &
(mental & rights. 18+.
dowry deaths.
physical abuse)
Marital Rape – The Unrecognized Crime
IPC & BNSS on Marital Rape

• Section 375 IPC: Sex without consent is rape... EXCEPT in marriage.

• Exception 2 of Section 375: If the wife is 18+, forced sex by the husband is not considered rape.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: Retains the same exception in Section 63, continuing to exclude
marital rape from criminal punishment.

• Marriage ≠ Ownership over a woman’s body.

• Violates Fundamental Rights: Article 21 (Right to Life & Dignity).
• Contradicts the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which recognizes forced
sex as abuse but doesn’t criminalize it.
 Cruelty as a Criminal
What is Section 498A IPC?
Offense
• Introduced in 1983 to protect married women from cruelty by husband & in-
laws.

Defines cruelty as:

• Physical or mental harm affecting a woman’s health or safety.
• Harassment for dowry, leading to mental or physical torture.

Definition of Cruelty under 498A IPC -

1.Physical Cruelty: Beating, assault, or inflicting injuries.

2. Mental Cruelty:
• Continuous verbal abuse, humiliation, emotional torture.
• Forcing a woman to leave her matrimonial home.
• Threats of divorce or false accusations.
section 86 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, “cruelty” means:

1.any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman;

• Physical Cruelty: This includes acts like assault,

battery, hitting, and any other form of physical
harm inflicted on a spouse.

• Mental Cruelty: Considered a broader category,

mental cruelty can manifest through constant
humiliation, verbal abuse, suspicion, excessive
criticism, emotional neglect, and even deliberate
isolation.

• Financial Cruelty: This involves withholding

financial support, preventing a spouse from
UNDERSTANDING MENTAL CRUELTY UNDER SECTION 498A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC)

Definition of Mental Cruelty: Section 498A of the IPC addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives
towards a married woman. Mental cruelty encompasses conduct that causes severe emotional distress,
impacting the wife's mental health and well-being.

Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa (2002): The Supreme Court held that cruelty under Section 498A IPC
need not be physical; even mental torture or abnormal behavior may amount to cruelty or harassment.

Illustrative Examples of Mental Cruelty:

• Persistent Humiliation and Verbal Abuse: - A husband consistently insults and belittles his wife in private and public
settings, leading to a significant decline in her self-esteem and mental well-being.

• Unfounded Accusations of Infidelity - Without any evidence, a husband repeatedly accuses his wife of being unfaithful,
causing her emotional turmoil and damaging her reputation.

• Social Isolation - A husband deliberately prevents his wife from interacting with her family and friends, leading to
feelings of loneliness and depression.

• Financial Control and Deprivation - A husband restricts his wife's access to financial resources, denying her basic
necessities and making her entirely dependent on him.

• Threats and Intimidation - A husband frequently threatens his wife with divorce or harm, creating a constant
atmosphere of fear and insecurity.
 Harassment under Section
498A
Definition of Harassment under Section 498A of IPC equivalent to Section
86 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, “Harassment of the woman where
such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.”
SHIV CHARAN LAL VERMA AND ANR. V.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

AIR 2006 SC
 FACTS

Shivcharan Lal Verma, during the subsistence of his first marriage to Kalindi, married a second
woman, Mohini. Both Shivcharan and Kalindi subjected Mohini to continuous torture, leading her to
commit suicide by self-immolation within their residence. At the time of the incident, Shivcharan and
Kalindi were in one room, while Mohini was in another. The prosecution charged the couple under
Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives) of the IPC. The
Sessions Court convicted both accused, sentencing them to seven years for the Section 306 charge and
three years for the Section 498A charge. The High Court upheld this conviction on appeal.

ISSUES

1. Given that Shivcharan's marriage to Mohini was void due to the subsistence of his first
marriage, could Section 498A, which addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives, be
applied?

2. Was there adequate evidence to sustain the conviction under Section 306 for abetment of
suicide?
 JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court made the following determinations:

1. The Court acknowledged that since the marriage between Shivcharan and Mohini was null
and void due to the existing marriage with Kalindi, the provisions of Section 498A IPC were not
applicable. Consequently, the conviction and sentence under this section were set aside.

2. Upon reviewing the testimonies of three key witnesses, the Court found clear evidence that
Mohini's suicide was a direct result of the torture inflicted by both Shivcharan and Kalindi. The
Court upheld the conviction under Section 306 IPC but reduced the sentence from seven years
to five years, considering the specific circumstances of the case.
JOSEPH SHINE V. UNION OF INDIA

2019 (3) SCC 39

2019 (3) SCC 392019 (3) SCC 39
 FACTS

In the year 2021, Joseph Shine filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court of India
challenging Section 497 of the IPC read with Section 198 of the CrPC. Section 497 described the offence
of adultery and the punishment for it, whereas Section 198 of the CrPC provided the procedural
aspects of prosecuting someone for offences against marriage. According to S 497, only a man who
willingly has sexual intercourse with a woman who he believes or has reason to believe is married
can be punished for adultery, whereas the woman does not face any punishment. Under Section 198,
only the husband of the woman in question shall have the right to file a complaint under Section 497.
The petitioners challenged Section 497 on the grounds that it was violative of Article 14, 15 and 21 of
the Constitution of India.

ISSUES

· Whether the provision for adultery violates Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution?
· Whether the provision for adultery undermines the dignity of a woman?
· Can there be interference of the legislative into the private realm of an individual.
 PREVIOUS JUDGEMENTS

• Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay (1954) SCR 930

• In this case, the constitutionality of Section 497 was challenged on the grounds that it violates Article 14 and
Article 15 by saying a wife cannot be a culprit even as an abettor. The 3 judge bench upheld the validity of the
said provision as it is a special provision created for women and is saved by Article 15(3). And Article 14 is a
general provision that has to be read with other Articles and sex is just a classification, so by combining both, it is
valid.

• Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India & Anr. (1985) Supp SCC 137
• In this case, a petition was filed under Article 32 challenging the validity of Section 497 of the IPC. The challenge
was based on the fact that the said provision does not provide a woman with the right to prosecute the woman
with whom her husband has committed adultery and hence is discriminatory. The 3 Judge Bench in this case also
upheld the validity by stating that extending the ambit of offence should be done by the legislature and not by
courts. The offence of breaking a family is no smaller than breaking a house, so the punishment is justified. The
Court accepted that only men can commit such an offence.

• V. Revathi v. Union of India (1988) 2 SCC 72

• In this case, the court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 497, read with Section 198, by stating that this
provision disables both wife and husband from punishing each other for adultery and is hence not
discriminatory. It only punishes an outsider who tries to destroy the sanctity of the marriage.
 JUDGEMENT

• The Court held that the test of manifest arbitrariness will be applied to check whether the
classification is reasonable. It was held that the classification is not reasonable and arbitrary as it
only provides the husband with the right to prosecute the offence and not the wife. This
interpretation is founded on a patriarchal note and is hence arbitrary.

• It also held that the dignity of the woman is inherently being violated by considering her as the
possession of her husband. The provision deems women incapable of making decisions regarding
her sexual autonomy and that such a provision has no place in the modern society.

• Further, crime is an offence that affects the society as a whole. Here, the offence so committed is
between the private sphere of individuals and State interference in the private affairs of
individuals was considered to be unwarranted. Hence, instead of including women as an
aggrieved party, it was better to do away with the law on whole. Adultery should remain a ground
for divorce, but not an offence.
 Gender-Neutrality & Misuse of 498A
1. Recognition of Male Victims:
2. Misuse of the Law -
Present-day examples:
• There's increasing awareness of men experiencing Present-day examples:
domestic violence, including emotional, psychological, • Concerns persist regarding the misuse of
and financial abuse. Section 498A as a tool for settling personal
• Social media and support groups are providing scores or extorting money.
platforms for men to share their experiences, • Instances of entire families being implicated
challenging the traditional narrative of domestic in false cases have led to calls for stricter
violence. safeguards.
• Cases are emerging where men are subjected to false • Court rulings have also pointed out the need
accusations, highlighting the potential for misuse of
to prevent the misuse of the law.
laws.

Point:
Point:
While the law serves a crucial purpose,
Acknowledging that men can be victims necessitates a
mechanisms must be in place to prevent its abuse
reevaluation of legal frameworks that primarily focus on
female victimhood.
and ensure that justice is served fairly.
 3. Psychological and Emotional Abuse:

Present-day examples:
• Increased awareness of the devastating impact of psychological and emotional abuse has led to calls for
broader definitions of "cruelty."
• This includes recognizing forms of abuse such as gaslighting, financial control, and isolation.

Point:
• Legal frameworks must encompass these less visible forms of abuse to provide comprehensive protection to
victims.

It's important to recognize that the debate surrounding gender neutrality in domestic violence
laws is highly nuanced. Balancing the need to protect vulnerable individuals with the
principles of equality and fairness is a significant challenge.