Bench's banter reflects sympathy for fairer sex
"Do as your wife commands and never question her authority": this advice to husbands came in a lighter vein from a vacation Bench of the Supreme
Court comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Deepak Verma. The judges asked them to adhere to this time-tested formula.
Truthful reporting of these observations of the Bench ruffled quite a few feathers. Many suave and gentle husbands expressed mild disagreement. But they conceded that Justices Katju and Verma must have spoken from the heart and, of course, from years of experience.
The Bench's banter did reflect the traditional sympathetic view that the law and the courts adopt towards the fair sex. Law considers matrimonial relationship to be sacred and takes a strict view of anyone polluting it.
Take for example the offence of adultery, which is punishable under Section 497 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The offence, as defined in IPC, can only be committed by a man, not by a woman! In Sowmithiri Vishnu vs Union of India (1985 SCC Sup 137), the SC held, "Indeed, the section provides expressly that the wife shall not be punishable even as an abettor... The contemplation of law is that the wife, who is involved in an illicit relationship with another man, is a victim and not the author of the crime."
The SC had attempted to strike a balance, albeit faintly, by reiterating, "The mere factum of the husband and wife living together does not entitle either of them to commit breach of criminal law and if one does, then he/she will be liable for all consequences of such breach."
In matrimonial disputes, many feel that the law leans heavily towards women. They cite lodging of false cases against husbands and in-laws. The anti-dowry law was brought in to protect spiralling crime against women in matrimonial homes. Its abuse by unreasonable persons may raise concern but does not take away the need of the law.
There is an interesting aspect of this law, as laid down by the SC, relating to `stridhan' -- the gifts, money, ornaments and other things that a bride brings with her to the husband's house.
In Pratibha Rani vs Suraj Kumar [1985 SCC (2) 370], the SC ruled that the wife was the absolute owner of the `stridhan' and the husband had no right over it. "She may spend the whole of it or give it away at her own pleasure by gift or will without any reference to the husband," it said. There is no similar reference to a husband's right in law. Additionally, in legal battles over custody of children, the courts, except in stray cases, rule in favour of mothers.
Be it Justices Katju and Verma or their predecessors, each of them have spoken out taking into account the changing dynamics of the most important social relationship. What stands out is probably the 2001 judgment in the case Chetan Dass vs Kamla Devi as it said, "Matrimonial matters are matters of delicate human and emotional relationship. It demands mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection with sufficient play for reasonable adjustments with the spouse."
Judging who is at fault in matrimonial matters, if one discounts Justices Katju and Verma putting the man always in the dock, is as important as the problem that is brought before the court by one of the parties.
An important "how to judge" guide is provided in the judgment rendered by SC in the case Shobha Rani vs Madhukar Reddi [1988 (1) SCC 105], in which it cautioned both lawyers and judges not to import their own notions of life while dealing with matrimonial problems.
"The judge should not evaluate the case from his own standards. There may be a generation gap between judges and the parties. It is always prudent if the judges keep aside their customs and manners in deciding matrimonial cases," it had said.
dhananjay.mahapatra@timesgroup.com
No comments:
Post a Comment