Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court reiterated that allegations of ill-treatment by a man against his family members do not fall within the ambit of mental cruelty envisaged in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1872. While the legal position is clear, the judgment has once again brought the focus to another key area: men and mental abuse. Perhaps, what requires a larger conversation is what are the possible avenues for a husband against mental cruelty by his wife. 

In a study conducted in 2019, 52.4% of men experienced gender-based violence. Out of 1000, males, 51.5% experienced violence at the hands of their wives/intimate partners at least once in their lifetime, and 10.5% in the last 12 months. The most common form of spousal violence was emotional (51.6%), followed by physical violence (6%). And, hence, it’s pertinent to understand the interplay between men, mental health, and the law. 

Under the current legal framework, there are no laws that protect men from intimate partner violence (IPV). IPV refers to a current or past spouse or partner in an intimate relationship who can commit intimate partner violence. Physical, verbal, emotional, economic, and sexual abuse are all manifestations of IPV. Section 498A is a protective provision for a wife against her husband or his relatives. Similarly, Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 states that it only protects women from such violence. 

“This provision (Section 498A IPC) is aimed at safeguarding married women (wives) and their interests. There’s no scope for husbands under this provision,” Senior Advocate Nagendra Naik stated. 

On similar lines, Advocate on Record, Sumeer Sodhi said that laws in India concerning remedies for cruelty in matrimonial relationships are unfortunately not gender-neutral. Whether Section 498A of the IPC is akin to Section 85 of the BharatiyaNyay Sanhita, 2023, or provisions under the DV Act, the protections or remedies under these laws are only provided for women. “Such provisions withstand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India due to the presence of Article 15(3), which enables the legislature to make special provisions for women and children,” he added. 

Naik further said that if it is a false case, the husband will have to go for malicious prosecution or damages for the mental agony caused if they are unable to prove the cruelty or harassment.

“In India, people refrain from going to court in general because they get exhausted there. And, that’s why malicious proceeding prosecutions are very rare,” he added. 

As another remedy, Senior Advocate Amit Desai highlighted the provision pertaining to perjury which can be opted for when false evidence is presented before a judicial proceeding. With this, he added that provision isn’t quite resorted to in India, unlike in other jurisdictions. 

Under Section 13(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, there is a gender-neutral provision under which either a husband or a wife can seek divorce on the ground of cruelty, including mental cruelty. 

“However, this provision under the Hindu Marriage Act, under which the husband can seek separation or divorce from the wife does not have any penal provisions or ramifications for the wife and can only be used to satisfy the Court on grounds of cruelty by the wife against the husband while seeking divorce on this ground,” Samarjit G Pattnak, Partner, Karanjawala & Co, clarified. 

This goes to say that at best, what a husband can do is file for divorce in the case of mental harassment or cruelty. Naik explained that due to this legal lacuna, many lawyers advise husbands against pursuing mental harassment cases against their wives. 

“When a husband comes to us to take some action against mental harassment, the lawyers may sometimes discourage them because of the amount of time and money, not to forget the mental harassment that they undergo in prosecuting…... that is worse than what they have already undergone. This can be compared to police brutality. Police may prosecute the wrong people who may be illegally arrested, but nobody is willing to go against the government because of the procedures involved,” Naik said. 

According to Sodhi, apart from divorce, an adventurous outlook can include filing a civil suit for an injunction restraining the wife from committing acts of cruelty. 

All of this leads us to one question: Do the current laws underplay men’s mental health? Because, keeping aside the fact that legal remedies are available, filing a false case by a wife or her relatives against her husband is also mental cruelty, in reality. Considering our evolving society, gender-neutral laws in terms of mental abuse are the need of the hour. And their absence in the new law (Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023) was a “lost opportunity”, Desai commented. 

“The new legislation, in my opinion, is a lost opportunity. The Parliament could have made 498A gender-neutral with checks and balances. In our society, there are many instances where the husband is subjected to mental cruelty and it has been documented in several judgements. The new legislation could have noted the problems of the past in our evolving society.” 

According to Desai, mental health issues in matrimonial matters should not be treated as a crime. 

“Mental health issue is a different problem, it's like suicide. The Supreme Court had struck down the attempt to suicide in 2011 and in the said judgment, the court refers to it as a mental health problem. Some of these matrimonial problems are also born out of mental health issues, personality disorders, and so on. It may not necessarily have the required ‘mens rea’ that a crime should have. In India, several marriages are arranged in nature, so, the couple do not know each other too well. They get to know their spouse after being married. If there are different personalities, how do you treat it as a crime? Dowry death, physical abuse, etc, are specific social evils that the law is seeking to curb. Mental abuse may not fall under the bracket.”