Women, domestic violence and the dangerous ‘misuse’ narrative

In a recent ruling in X v. Telangana State and anotherThe Supreme Court of India made some shocking comments. Justices B. Nagarathna and Kotiswar Singh stated that there is a “growing tendency” among women to misuse Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a provision designed to protect women from cruelty in marriage, using it as a tool for personal purposes. vendetta against their husbands and in-laws. While the judges made it clear that women who have suffered cruelty should not remain silent, their observations risk perpetuating harmful stereotypes about women’s misuse of the legal system.

In the said case, a woman filed an FIR in February 2022 alleging cruelty under Section 498A and dowry harassment under the Dowry Prohibition Act. Among the accused was not only her husband but also six members of her family. While the High Court rejected the husband’s plea to quash the FIR, it restricted the arrests until the charge sheet was filed, as per laid down legal guidelines (Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar). However, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR against the husband and her in-laws, citing that she made vague and baseless allegations.

Police efficiency versus victim intent

What’s worrying is the broader narrative these comments create. Based on decades of experience working with survivors of domestic violence, we know that vague and general allegations in FIRs are often a reflection of police inefficiency rather than the victim’s intent. Women often face insensitivity at police stations, where complaints are dismissed out of hand or recorded haphazardly. Instead of holding police accountable for poorly recorded statements, the Supreme Court appears to place the burden on the victim, suggesting that they must ensure that their complaint is detailed and accurate, a nearly impossible expectation in a hostile system.

The Court also made troubling inferences about the lack of prior complaints from the victim. The judges noted that she married in 2015 and had two children in 2016 and 2017, and concluded that there was probably no harassment during this period. This assumption is not only unfounded but ignores the reality that many women delay filing complaints due to social pressure, lack of resources, or repeated attempts by authorities to counsel them to “resolve” the matter. The absence of prior legal actions cannot and should not be equated with the absence of violence.

The judges highlighted that the victim “abandoned” her two children, who remain in the custody of her husband. This assumption is also problematic. Women often face insurmountable barriers to seeking custody, including financial limitations, lack of legal support, and social stigma. The Court could have considered the possibility of the victim being denied access to her children or made a painful decision to prioritize her stability.

Small letter scrutiny

Another aspect of the ruling raises serious concerns. The Court referred to a letter the victim allegedly wrote to the police in 2021, admitting that she had left her marital home after a fight over chatting with another man and promising not to “repeat such acts.” This letter, presented by her husband, was accepted at face value. However, anyone familiar with how women are pressured during “counseling” sessions at police stations knows the level of coercion they face. It is alarming that the Court has not examined the circumstances in which this letter was written, especially in a case involving allegations of domestic violence.

Equally disturbing is the Court’s dismissal of dowry allegations. Despite the victim’s claims of a substantial dowry given at the time of the marriage, the judges chose to focus on procedural issues and vague accusations rather than allowing the trial to continue. In doing so, they missed an opportunity to reinforce the illegality of dowry, a deeply rooted crime that claims the lives of 18 women every day in India, according to the National Crime Records Bureau (2022).

The judgment also framed the FIR as a retaliatory measure, filed after the husband filed for an uncontested divorce. This conclusion ignores the reality that women often endure violence for years before taking legal action, with threats of divorce being the ultimate trigger. By presenting their complaint as vindictive, the Court risks further discouraging women from seeking legal recourse.

Perhaps the most obvious thing is that the victim was not present or represented during the process. Given the systemic barriers women face in accessing legal support, the Court could have ensured that she had the resources to present her case. Instead, he handed down a ruling that not only undermines his claims but also sets a dangerous precedent for future cases.

Justice Krishna Iyer once said: “A socially sensitized judge is a better legal armor against gender outrage than the long clauses of a complex statute.” Unfortunately, this case illustrates how far we are still from achieving that sensitivity in our judiciary.

How 498A is Constantly Undermined

Section 498A, enacted almost 40 years ago, remains an essential legal safeguard against domestic violence. However, its effectiveness is constantly undermined by narratives of misuse, despite overwhelming evidence of the prevalence of domestic violence in India. The National Family Health Survey (2019-20) found that 30% of women aged 18-49 had experienced physical violence since the age of 15, a staggering figure that translates to more than 200 million women.

The growing trend of Supreme Court justices making casual and contradictory statements about domestic violence must be addressed without delay. These comments have a direct and significant impact on the way both the police and the judiciary respond to cases on the ground, potentially undermining efforts to protect victims and deliver justice. The judiciary must speak with greater compassion, recognizing the systemic barriers that prevent women from seeking justice.

(Audrey D’mello is the director of Majlis, and Flavia Agnes is a jurist and women’s rights lawyer. Majlis offers legal advice to women and children facing sexual and domestic violence. For help, call 07506732641.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the authors.