Husband shall take 498A wife back?

Hi Forum,

We do read lots of threads and queries on various forum on the internet where the harrassed husbands ask a question - "Shall I take my wife back after a false 498A?". Few husbands still remain attached to their 498A wives that they are ready to cohabit with her again even after going to jail.

So what exactly should a husband do?

• Shall he take his 498A wife back?
• What if she now attacks with solid proofs as advised by one of the respected mobile lawyer of this forum?
• What if she again implicate her husband in more false cases?
• Does a false 498A wife should be allowed to cohabit again with any man in the society? Or A man should should marry a false 498A divorcee woman?
• Can society boycott such false 498A wives?

I welcome your sweet replies on this topic. I know there can be a hot debate on this issues but I request everybody to remain calm and cool and respect others while replying.

Cheers!

Coool

Now here is a judgement where a husband took his 498A wife back and was slapped with RAPE. charges 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2040 OF 2009

Rakesh Lilaram Rohira
Age – 36 years, OccupationBusiness,
Residing at 1601, Tivoli,
Hiranandani Gardens, Powai,
Mumbai – 400 076.                                                       ....Petitioner.

Vs.

1 The State of Maharashtra
Through the Senior Inspector
of Police,
Powai Police Station,
Mumbai.

2 Mrs. Priyanka Rakesh Rohira,
Age – 22 years, Occu.Nil,
Flat No. 13,
Shreemant Chintamani Apartment,
Behind Utsav Lawns,
Vidyanagari, NashikRoad,
Nashik.                                                                  ....Respondents.

Mr. S.R. Chitnis, Sr. Counsel i/by Mr. Pankaj Das for the Petitioner.
Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP for the State.
Mr. S. Malik,for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE &

ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.
DATE : 8th July, 2010

ORAL JUDGMENT:(PERB.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)

1 Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the record. Rule. Respondent No.2 has filed affidavit in reply.

2 The Petition is heard, at length, for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3 The Petitioner, as a widower and Respondent No.2 as a divorcee, got married on 14/07/2006, at Thane and at that time the Petitioner had a daughter of 10 years of age from his first wife. On or about 27th August, 2007 i.e. after one year of cohabitation, the parties approached the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Thane with a Petition for divorce by the mutual consent. However, on or about 30th September, 2007, Respondent No.2 filed an application before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Thane, alleging that the consent, for obtaining divorce, was under duress and therefore, she raised objection. On or about 9th February, 2008, the Petitioner approached the Family Court and submitted a Petition for divorce. On 26th March, 2008 he approached the Powai Police Station and filed C.R. No. 197 of 2008 against his wife (Respondent No.2) for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The wife, approached the NashikRoad Police Station and filed C.R. No. 215 of 2008 against the Petitioner for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 of the IPC. Both of them approached this Court in Criminal Application No.1684 of 2008 and Criminal Application No. 1783 of 2008 respectively for Anticipatory Bail. By a common order dated 12th August, 2008, both the Applications were disposed off in terms of the consent terms. The Petitionerhusband, agreed to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/(Rupees five lacs only) with the Registrar of this Court and the said amount was transferred to the Family Court. Both of them gave consent for quashing of the FIR registered against each other i.e. C.R. No. 197 of 2008 registered at the instance of the husband and C.R. No. 215 of 2008, registered at the instance of the wife and therefore, by the said order dated 12/08/2008 both the C.R.s came to be quashed by invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and therefore, the anticipatory bail applications did not survive. However, this Court observed that if the husband failed to deposit Rs.5,00,000/within four weeks, the order would stand automatically cancelled and both the C.R.s would stand revived.

4 Criminal Application No. 3123 of 2008 and Criminal Application No.544 of 2008 filed by the husband came up before the learned Single Judge in the second round. The husband applied for anticipatory bail as he came to know that a fresh FIR was registered against him by the wife i.e.
C.R. No. 392 of 2008 with the Powai Police station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Section 376A, 341 and 506 of the IPC. The husband also prayed for revival of his earlier FIR i.e. C.R. No. 197 of 2008 and also to recall the order to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/with the Registrar of this Court and recall the same. In the course of hearing of these applications, the wife revived her prayer for anticipatory bail in C.R. No. 197 of 2008 to be restored. The learned Single Judge, by her order dated 26th September, 2008, allowed the application and revived C.R. No. 197 of 2008 filed by the husband and recalled the directions to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/and granted anticipatory bail to the wife in C.R. No. 197 of 2008. We are informed that this order dated 26th September, 2008 is a subject matter of challenge in an SLP presently pending before the Supreme Court (SLP No. 7409 of 2009).

5 It is under these circumstances, the husband has filed the instant Petition praying for quashing of C.R. No. 392 of 2008 registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the wife for the offences punishable under Sections 376A, 341 and 506 of the IPC, registered with the Powai Police Station on 16/07/2008. On 9th November, 2009, this Court with the consent of the parties, referred them for mediation and stayed all the proceedings between the parties including the investigation in C.R. No. 392 of 2008 and the parties were referred to mediation, not once, but twice and the mediation was not successful.

6 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the statement of the wife recorded by the Powai police, while registering C.R. No. 392 of 2008, if considered on its own, does not make out, even prima facie, the offences punishable under Sections 376A, 341 and 506 of the IPC and therefore, on the basis of the decisions in the case of Mohd. Shamim & Ors. Vs. Nahid Begum (Smt) & Anr. (2005) 3 S.C.C. 302, and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1993 Cri.L.J. 1042, it was prayed to quash the FIR. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that there was no separation of the parties either by a decree of divorce or under any custom envisaged between 13/06/2008 and 15/06/2008 and therefore, even prima facie an offence punishable under Section 376A of IPC was not made out. It was further submitted that the Respondent wife willingly joined the company of the Petitioner and they stayed together in hotel “Pride” at Bhandup during these 3 days, and hence there was no material in support of the charge under Section 341 of the IPC. It was further pointed out by reading through the statement of the wife recorded by the I.O. that the charge of criminal intimidation was not even prima facie, made out.

7 Mr. Malik, the learned counsel appearing for the wife, on the other hand, submitted that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. ought to be sparingly used and with care, caution and circumspection, when a triable case of a cognizable offence is made out in the statement recorded of the Complainant, the investigation and further trial should not be stiffled. While conceding that there was no separation by a decree of divorce by a competent Court, it is submitted by Mr. Malik, that whether there was a separation by “custom” or “usage”, is a matter of evidence and therefore, the parties must be allowed to lead evidence in the trial rather than shutting the doors of investigation and trial. It was also submitted that the terms “usage” and “custom” are required to be read in the facts of each case and on the basis of the evidence the parties may adduce during the trial. Mr. Malik relied upon the following decisions while opposing the Petition:

 

1 State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (Supra)

2 State of Karnataka Vs. M. Devendrappa & Anr., 2002 Cr.L.J. 1998.

3 Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, AIR 1976, S.C. 1947

4 M/s. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Biological E. Ltd. & Ors., (2000)3 SCC 269.

5 Jehan Singh Vs. Delhi Administration, (1974) 4 SCC 522

8 The only question that we are required to address is whether the complaint made by the wife and registered with the Powai Police Station as C.R. No. 392 of 2008 on 16/07/2008 makes out, even prima facie, any ingredients of the alleged offences i.e. 376A, 341 and 506 of I.P.C.. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to reproduce the complaint as it is

“........
Upon getting annoyed with the said harassment, on the date 26/4/08, I have lodged an offence under Section 498(A) against my husband, at Nasik. Moreover, even Rakesh has lodged a false complaint against me at Powai Police Station. As we both have lodged the complaints against each other, Rakesh and I used to meet in the High Court for getting bail, but, he and I did not get anticipatory bail. For this reason, we both got harried, hence, on 12/06/2008 being the date of hearing, in the High Court, after the hearing, Shri Rakesh and I made formal discussion during which, Rakesh told me that he got fed up with the court and the police and that if I withdrew the case under Section 498(A) then he, by taking the prior permission of the members of his family, was ready to cohabit with me. At that time, even I, by thinking about my future life and believing the words of Shri Rakesh, immediately, signed and gave an affidavit to Rakesh’s advocate, in the Court, for withdrawing the complaint under Section 498(A) lodged by me in Nasik Road Police Station.

 

 

 

Thereafter, I started to go with Shri Rakesh in his red colour Santro Car Number 888 to Powai and when I was approaching Powai, Shri Rakesh, on reaching at the residence at Powai, told me, “Presently there is not a good atmosphere in the house, I will go in the house and I will persuade everybody in the house and then I will take you home.” Thereafter, we went, by his car, to Hotel (illegible) at Mulund to stay there. On that night, Rakesh made a lot of request to me to stay together there. Rakesh went away late in the night to persuade his family members, leaving me in the hotel.

 

 

On the next day, Rakesh and I had made a compromise with each other about withdrawing the cases against each other by meeting our advocates. In pursuance thereof, we both went to the Hon’ble High Court to hold a meeting with the advocate, (but) at that time, as my advocate had not come in the Court, we left the Court to go to Rakesh’s house again; on that day, Rakesh again avoided to take me to his house and he led me to hotel Pride at Bhandup. I was staying in the above mentioned Hotel from 13/6/08 to 15/6/08. During the said period, Shri Rakesh had a forcible physical relation with me against my wish. At that time, I tried to resist him but Rakesh did not pay heed to me and he intimidate me that he would again lodge complaint against me in Mumbai, if I told about the aforesaid things my family members and his family members by making phone calls to them and he threatened to kill me. I was restless, hence I did not tell the said thing to anybody. On account of the said incident I was not in a proper mental and physical state.

 

 

 

I stayed in the said hotel for two days and my parents and Rakesh’s friends Gopal and Gagan were aware about the same. On the date 14/6/08, Rakesh went away leaving me in the said hotel, to persuade his family members, but he did not come back. Thereafter, I had tried to make phone calls to him again and again, but was not getting any kind of response from him. However, as case (hearing) in to my complaint was in the High Court on the date 27/06/08, I took a halt on that day and on the next day I went to my native place at Nasik.”

9 As per the wife, on 12/06/2009, she came to Mumbai and signed the affidavit for compromise between them keeping in mind the future interests of matrimonial life and agreed for withdrawal of the cases. Both of them proceeded in a car, to go to the house of the husband at Powai. However, before reaching the matrimonial home, the husband suggested that they should stay in a hotel for two days and in the meanwhile, he would persuade his parents and thereafter take her home. He left the hotel and came back late in the night. Between 13/06/2008 to 15/06/2008 they stayed in the hotel and he forced her to have physical relationship. When she resisted to have such a relationship, the husband did not agree and threatened that if she would telephone any of her family members, he would file one more case at Mumbai and therefore, the wife did not complain to anyone.

10 In the order dated 12/08/2008, the learned Single Judge in paras 4 and 5 recorded the statements of both the parties in the following words:

“4 - During hearing for these applications, the applicants stated that they do not wish to continue with the prosecution lodged by them against each other. Priyanka has stated that she does not wish to continue with the prosecution of her FIR. So also applicant Rakesh has stated that he does not wish to continue with the prosecution of this case i.e. C.R. No. 197 of 2008. It is the case of Priyanka that her jewellery weighing about 62 tolas and her clothes are lying at her matrimonial house. Mr. Marwadi, on instructions, denies this fact. However, now Mr. Marwadi states that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of applicant Rakesh he is willing to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs in this Court and the said amount may be transferred to the Family Court as and when the proceedings are instituted by the parties. The said amount of Rs. 5 lakh will be deposited within fourt weeks from today.

 

5. Looking to the above facts and looking to the fact that the dispute is in between husband and wife, I am inclined to quash the proceedings in both the cases. ...........”

11 There is no doubt as of now, that there is no decree of divorce granted by a competent Court and on the other hand, divorce petition filed by the husband is pending. The petition initially filed in the family Court at Mumbai has been transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Nashik. Even as per the complaint dated 16/07/2008, the wife came from Nashik to Mumbai on 12/06/2008 so as to reconcile and restore the matrimonial relationship. While on the way to the matrimonial home, along with the husband, both stayed at hotel “Pride” at Bhandup from 13/06/2008 to 15/06/2008. The complaint has been filed exactly after one month i.e. on 16/07/2008. Though, the wife was before this Court on 12/08/2008, in the consent order so passed, quashing the FIRs filed by both of them against each other, the wife did not disclose that she had, in the meanwhile, registered C.R. No. 392 of 2008. In the case of Bhajan Lal (Supra), in the caveat placed on the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of the High Court, it is stated that:

 

“Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.. One of such guidelines is where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. .......... The power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution and under Section 482 of the Code have no limits but more the power due care and caution is to be exercised while invoking these powers.”

In the case of State of Karnataka (Supra), the Supreme Court held that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to stiffle a legitimate prosecution and the High Court should not assume the role of a trial Court and embark upon an enquiry. The said power is required to be exercised sparingly, with caution and circumspection.

12 We have gone through the complaint in terms of the statement of the wife recorded on 16/07/2008 while registering C.R. No. 392 of 2008 and on the peculiar facts of this case, we are satisfied that even prima facie, there is no material in support of the charge under Section 376A of the IPC. The complaint read in its totality also does not make out the case for the offences punishable under Section, either 341 or 506 of the IPC. Despite the fact, both the husband and wife are engaged in series of litigation right from the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division to the Supreme Court, as of now, we do not find any reason to subject the husband for an inquiry into C.R. No. 392 of 2008 as the said complaint read as it is, does not make out any case to proceed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 376A, 341 and 506 of the IPC. We do not agree with the submissions of Mr. Malik that there was a separation as per “custom” or “usage” between the parties and the same could be allowed to be proved in the trial. Such a case has not been made out in the Complaint and on the contrary, the complaint read as it is, goes to show that the wife came with the husband of her own and by way of afterthought, the C.R. has been registered one month later and the said act was even suppressed from the High Court when the consent order was passed on 12th August, 2008.

13 In the premises, this petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)                                                                                                              (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)

Source: https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/judgements/2010/CRWP204009.pdf

A good question indeed

In order to determine the answer we will have to examine

1. What was the truth behind the complain? - if it was a true complain, false complain or whether it falls in u gray area.

2.  If it was false complain. There is a no way the  terrorist woman is comming back in home 

3.  What the parties has learned  - If  the case is in gray area,  girl and parents have learned their lesson, and there is working and lasting solution.  It is worth considering getting back the girl .

4.  If true complain, and boy side realises it, girl is interested in comming back and there is long lasting solution - yes. Otherwise move on......

I don't want to be a part of any hot debate, but just my honest opinion,

Every case has its own facts. Not every 498a case is false and not every wife who filed 498a on her husband has done it for misusing the law and to extort money. There are many genuine cases, where the wife has really sufferred at the hands of the husband / in-laws and then, as a last resort has chosen to file a 498a case. So, will it be fair to ban such women out of the society and that nobody should marry such a woman just because she chose not to suffer anymore? There cannot be a generalized rule for every woman who files 498a. It may be that a woman out of harrassment filed a 498a case and then if her husband takes her back and starts treating her well why she will resort to file another case? It will be too much to say that every woman who comes back to her matrimonial home after filing a 498a has come back just to create another cause of action. So, just out of baseless fears will it be proper to break the relationship which can be patched again? Whether a husband should take his 498a wife back depends upon under what circumstance the case was filed which only he and his family knows. But if the wife shows vendicative nature or has no affection/respect for her matrimonial family and is just harrassing the family then, it is better not to take her back and invite more trouble. So, let every case be analysed with a clear and open mind and  decided on its own facts without keeping any prejudice in the mind. 

@Adv Archana -

Every case has its own facts. Not every 498a case is false and not every wife who filed 498a on her husband has done it for misusing the law and to extort money. There are many genuine cases, where the wife has really sufferred at the hands of the husband / in-laws and then, as a last resort has chosen to file a 498a case.

I agree that every case has its own facts and not ever 498A case is false but given the facts. seeing the men sufferring in the society and on top of all, after the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, I would like to modify (Sorry, I am doing it without your permission) your lines as:

There are few genuine cases, where the wife has really sufferred at the hands of the husband / in-laws and then, as a last resort has chosen to file a 498a case.

I would like to mention that this topic should be read as "Husband shall take a false 498A wife back?" Although I have mentioned in the posts under this topic so there should be no confusions while replying now.

Thanks,

Coool

1. In my opinion "Husband" should NOT take back a 498a wife for the simple ethical question irrespective of arrest or nots is that when a trust between husband and wife is broken and having knowledge of milder forms of Law when a wife resorts to harsher form of Law then she has intentionally brotken that very "trust".


2. The second question is "should all those 498a women suffer" ? I say it is not suffering if you see the sufferings whatever brief or longer period the husband side have gone and "hisab barabar"  scenario is there because "equality" works now. There is no "impulsive" decision a "wife side" takes to file 498a ! IF the decision is "impulsive" if anyone of you say  then also some "guidence from particular segments of kala kots to police" is there and these two segments also know the "milder forms" of leal teaching a husband and his family so why that suggestion was not given on DAY 1? Hence, wife's who file 498a be it in Chikmanglur PS to Mumbai get "suggestion" of usage of FORMS of LAW and unless one educates these SUGGESTIVE segments FIRST there is no "returning back" and intentionally ending yourself into same loop of uspicion and harmony which to pick hereon ?.


3. "Attachment" and "detachment" is the only form of progamming a HUSBAND needs to learn now as it was not taught to him by his parent just like a cat teaches her kittens all the 8 tricks to live a life except the 9th. trick. Trick is generic and not blunt remark here. When a Form of Law has been used by one spouse then after that where is the scope of Love and Emotions clubbed with sentiments expected from Husband side now ? Why husband is supposed to take back a wife as always is beign lectured? Why a wife is not asked to use milder Form of Law even in bluff of a moment ? A aam adami's dreams gets shattered once he is sitting 10 hrs. in a PS at receiving end giving his verison of statement.  It is the "lust" which clouds a husband's judgment and ends into taking a 498a wife nothing else.


4. Love and emotions are usefull ups and down in sterile family setups and once either spouse crosses that boundaries there shall not be any taking back because Law is neither in favor of husband nor wife as generic discussions here suggest both sides of aggrivements in equal emerging voice.


5. After hit by 498a both sides should remove "rainbow" glasses and see the reality. india is adavnce / modern as well as customary but when a aam adami who has no job sitting at PS for 10 hrs. is hit he has no business ot take back the same "cause of action" for his happiness it is called sadistic attitude. I am not going into statistics and what if everythign goes well for that neither you know nor I can ever know so why comment on something which is in "future" on just your and mine "emotions" and "sentiments" whereas under Law there is no scope of "emotions" and "sentiments" it is a pure scenarios base don untried issues of facts in between two parties whom neither you may know nor I may try to know aab kya ho raha hai un dono ke saath kar key, usney to rakh liya bechari ko lekin kya woh bechari thekh sei rah rahi hai ! See society again asks questions ! I say why give a chance to society and who is society (read State) in such famiy matters to pock its nose ?

@ Adv Archana ji,

Sorry for intruding but I would like to make one thig clear here:

From your Post: " It may be that a woman out of harrassment filed a 498a case and then if her husband takes her back and starts treating her well why she will resort to file another case?"

The defintion of "Starts Treating her well" is too broad and there is no yardstick for this. For most of today's women it is none other than succumbing to thier illegal dictates.

So there is evry chance that agin the matrimonial relationship will be ruined and this time it can be more worse.

Unfortunaley today's Judiciary System is strongly supporting wives filing 498A cases though they know that they are false cases and it is becoming very difficult to get "Divorce" from them.

EVERY CASE IS DIFFERENT AND EVERY CASE HAS ITS OWN FACTS, THERE CAN BE NO GENERALiZED OPINION AGAINST EITHER HUSBAND OR WIFE. ALL SUFFERER HUSBANDS OF S.498A ARE NOT INNOCENT NOR EVERY WIFE FILING 498A DOES IT FOR EXTRACTING MONEY. SIMILARLY EVERY WIFE FILING 498A DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE TAKEN BACK. WHETHER THE RELATIONSHIP SHOULD BE PATCHED UP OR BROKEN FOREVER DEPENDS UPON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE DIFFERENT IN ALL CASES AND FOR THAT ONE SHOULD KEEP ONES MIND OPEN AND CLEAR WITHOUT HOLDING PREJUDICES AGAINST ANY ONE FOR LOOKING INTO THE POSSIBILITIES, THIS IS ALL WHAT I SAID. JUST MAKING ALLEGATIONS GENERALLY AND BECAUSE THE SC HAS MADE SOME OBSERVATIONS IN SOME PARTICULAR CASE, DOES IT MEAN THAT IF THERE IS SOME POSSIBILITY OF PATCH UP IN A CASE IT SHOULD'NT BE DONE OR THAT ALL WIFES FILING 498A SHOULD BE BANNED FROM THE SOCIETY? 

1. All 498a wives should not be allowed to come back to same family.

2. All 498a wives should be told to use "milder forms" of Law in Family disputes. Authoritative take is based on open question to you all  ld. Advocates here:

Que. 1: A Rapist comes to your chamber and admits to Rape. Que. is will you accept his case?


Que 2: If you accept his case giving lame reason that If I don't accept some other lawyer will aceept and furter icing the cake with philosophy that even State will provide representation then if you can think of so many philosophies then why can't each one of you guide a "wife" to use "milder form" of Family Law section / act / code as "ethical practice probability" under Family Law that later they may be given a chance ot patch up and especially wife should not be banned from society ?


Que 2 is where you have failed as coming from respected Noble profession and I have the courage to say it publically and further Admin. may delete my account if my que 1 and 2 takes are "contempt" on respected profession as per 100% of you respected professionals "societal vision" here !
 

1. 498a is LEGAL RAPE on husband's side of family and nothing else and contradict this contentiously at your writing pleasure if you can respected professionals !

Yes you take her back after she jails you under section 498a. THEN...BEAT HER BLACK AND BLUE DAY AND NIGHT. It won't matter after being in jail.

@Adv Archana,

I tend to disagree on the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India point. They have not made observations pertaining to a specific case or a complaint , it has rather been observed as a trend in the society.  Please find below the para 18 of Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors - Jul 19 2005 (https://www.498a.org/contents/judgements/SupremeCourtJudgement_LegalTerrorism.pdf)

18. The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contented by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignomy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame work. As noted above the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not an assassin's weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual "wolf" appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any pre-conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally undisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.

Please find below the few paras of the latest judgement (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4684 of 2009) Preeti Gupta & Another) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46704/)

30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to aSCertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be SCrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.

34.   Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases

All 498a wives should not be allowed to come back to same family.

@Arun Sir: Does this mean that false 498A wife should go to some other family and make more criminals in the society by filing one more false 498A?

@Aishwarys: I would welcome your views on this thread. So please go ahead.

I totally agree with adv  Archana