The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking various reforms in matrimonial laws, including the demand for gender-neutral provisions, mandatory preliminary inquiry before registration of complaints under Section 498A IPC (now Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), and safeguards against alleged misuse. The Court held that such demands amount to interference with legislative functions, which fall within the exclusive domain of the Parliament. Significantly, the Court remarked that generalized allegations of misuse cannot serve as grounds to dilute legal safeguards meant for the protection of women.
The PIL, filed by NGO Janshruti (People’s Voice) through Advocate-on-Record Sadhana Sandhu, urged the Court to mandate balanced protections in matrimonial disputes. Among its key prayers were gender neutrality in maintenance laws, amendment to provisions related to dowry harassment, mandatory scrutiny before registration of complaints, and mechanisms to penalize false accusations. The petitioner further urged that guidelines be laid down for the timely adjudication of maintenance and alimony claims, including a fixed 90-day resolution period and a cap of two years on maintenance for educated spouses. Additionally, the PIL sought structural reforms such as specialized matrimonial mediation forums, online case management systems, and public legal literacy initiatives.
The petitioner contended that existing laws, including Section 498A IPC and maintenance provisions under CrPC and the Hindu Marriage Act, were being disproportionately misused, often causing undue hardship to men and their families. The plea stressed the necessity of amending these laws to ensure equitable treatment for all parties, regardless of gender. It was submitted that India should adopt globally aligned practices where domestic violence laws are gender-neutral and accessible to all.
While considering the matter, the bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh found no merit in the challenge to the constitutionality or legislative intent of Section 498A IPC. The Court categorically stated, “We see no reason to interfere with the legislative policy or the mandate behind Section 498A IPC, now codified as Section 84 of the BNS. The contention that the provision violates Article 14 is wholly misconceived. Article 15 of the Constitution expressly authorizes special legislation for the protection of women and children.”
Regarding the claim of misuse, the Court observed, “The allegation of misuse is vague and lacks evidentiary support. Such claims can only be examined in the facts of individual cases and not under Article 32 jurisdiction.”
When the petitioner’s counsel attempted to justify the claims using foreign legal standards, Justice Kant responded sharply, “Should we legislate because other countries do so? We maintain our sovereignty. Let them follow our model if they wish.” Justice Kant also dismissed the reliance on NCRB data for general claims of misuse, stating, “This Court is not inclined to be guided by statistics alone. Such data is better utilized in specific matters where abuse is clearly demonstrable.”
In a strong oral rebuke to the sweeping nature of the PIL, the bench remarked, “If you sit in court today, you’ll see a case where a woman was beheaded by her husband. Should we apply your ‘misuse’ argument there? Do you expect us to strike down such a provision merely because there are isolated cases of abuse? Very unfortunate.”
On the issue of time-bound adjudication and creation of new infrastructure for matrimonial cases, the Court noted that such measures would involve financial and administrative commitments best handled by the legislature and executive.
The Top Court held that the reliefs sought pertained to legislative and policy decisions which do not fall within judicial competence. The bench refused to allow withdrawal of the petition for refiling with more data, observing that the platform of Article 32 cannot be misused to mount speculative challenges on legislative policies. Accordingly, the PIL was dismissed.
Picture Source :
