New Delhi:

The Supreme Court has said expressing disapproval for marriage does not amount to abetment of suicide under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma made the observation while quashing a chargesheet against a woman who was accused of abetting the suicide of another woman who was allegedly in love with her son.

The allegations were based on disputes between the victim and the appellant’s son, who had refused to marry her. The appellant was accused of opposing the marriage and making disparaging remarks against the victim

The court said even if all evidence on record, including the chargesheet and witness statements, are taken to be correct, there is not an iota of evidence against the appellant.

“We find that the acts of the appellant are too remote and indirect to constitute the offence under section 306, IPC. There is no allegation against the appellant of a nature that the victim was left with no alternative but to commit the unfortunate act of suicide,” the bench said.

The court said it is discerned from the record that the appellant, along with her family, did not attempt to put any pressure on the victim to end the relationship between her and the appellant’s son.

“In fact, it was the victim’s family that was unhappy with the relationship. Even if the appellant expressed her disapproval towards the marriage of Babu Das and the victim, it does not rise to the level of direct or indirect instigation of abetting suicide.

“Further, a remark such as asking the victim to not be alive if she cannot live without marrying her lover will also not gain the status of abetment. There needs to be a positive act that creates an environment where the victim is pushed to the edge in order to sustain the charge of section 306, IPC,” the bench said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

In a recent ruling in X v. State of Telangana & Another, the Supreme Court of India made some shocking remarks. Justices B. Nagarathna and Kotiswar Singh stated that there is a “growing tendency” for women to misuse Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)—a provision designed to protect women from cruelty in marriage—by using it as a tool for personal vendetta against their husbands and in-laws. While the judges clarified that women who have suffered cruelty should not remain silent, their observations risk perpetuating harmful stereotypes about women misusing 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. The accused included not just her husband but also six members of his family. While the High Court rejected the husband’s plea to quash the FIR, it restricted arrests until the charge sheet was filed, as per established legal guidelines (Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar). However, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR against the husband and in-laws, citing she made vague and unsubstantiated allegations.

Police Efficiency vs Victim’s Intent

What is concerning is the broader narrative these remarks create. Based on decades of experience working with domestic violence survivors, we know that vague and omnibus allegations in FIRs are often a reflection of police inefficiency rather than the victim’s intent. Women frequently face insensitivity at police stations, where complaints are either dismissed outright or recorded haphazardly. Instead of holding the police accountable for poorly recorded statements, the Supreme Court appears to place the burden on the victim, suggesting that she should ensure her complaint is detailed and precise—a near-impossible expectation in a hostile system.

The Court also made troubling inferences about the absence of earlier complaints by the victim. The justices noted that she married in 2015 and had two children in 2016 and 2017, concluding that there was likely no harassment during this period. This assumption is not only baseless but ignores the reality that many women delay filing complaints due to societal pressure, lack of resources, or repeated attempts by authorities to counsel them into “settling” the matter. The absence of prior legal action cannot and should not be equated with an absence of violence.

The judges highlighted that the victim “abandoned” her two children, who remain in her husband’s custody. This assumption, too, is problematic. Women often face insurmountable barriers to seeking custody, including financial constraints, lack of legal support, and societal stigma. The Court could have considered the possibility that the victim was denied access to her children or made a painful choice to prioritise their stability.

Little Scrutiny Of Letter

Another aspect of the judgment raises serious concerns. The Court referred to a letter the victim allegedly wrote to the police in 2021, admitting she had left her matrimonial home after a quarrel about chatting with another man and promising not to “repeat such acts”. This letter, produced by her husband, was accepted at face value. Yet, anyone familiar with how women are pressured during “counselling” sessions at police stations knows the level of coercion they face. It is alarming that the Court did not scrutinise the circumstances under which this letter was written, especially in a case involving allegations of domestic violence.

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

The judgment also framed the FIR as a retaliatory measure, filed after the husband sought a mutual consent divorce. This conclusion overlooks the reality that women often endure violence for years before taking legal action, with divorce threats serving as the final trigger. By framing her complaint as vengeful, the Court risks further discouraging women from seeking legal recourse.

Perhaps most glaringly, the victim was neither present nor represented during the proceedings. Given the systemic hurdles women face in accessing legal support, the Court could have ensured that she had the resources to present her case. Instead, it delivered a judgment that not only undermines her claims but also sets a dangerous precedent for future cases.

Justice Krishna Iyer once said, “A socially sensitised judge is a better statutory armour against gender outrage than long clauses of a complex statute.” Sadly, this case illustrates how far we still are from achieving such sensitivity in our judiciary.

How 498A Is Consistently Undermined

Section 498A, enacted nearly 40 years ago, remains an essential legal safeguard against domestic violence. Yet, its effectiveness is consistently 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 over 200 million women.

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

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

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the authors

A picture showing Vorawan “Beaut” Ramwan and Anticha “An” Sangchai wearing wedding dresses in a Pride parade is seen at their house during an interview with Reuters. File
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Thailand’s Senate passed the final reading of a marriage equality law on June 18 , paving the way for it to become the first country in Southeast Asia to recognise same-sex couples.

The bill comes after more than two decades of effort from activists and politicians, after previous drafts did not reach parliament.

With the support of nearly all lawmakers in the Upper House, the law next needs royal approval. It will come into force 120 days after it is published in the royal gazette.

LGBT advocates called the move a “monumental step forward,” as Thailand would be the first nation in Southeast Asia to enact marriage equality legislation and the third territory in Asia, after Nepal and Taiwan.

“We are very proud to make history,” said Plaifah Kyoka Shodladd, member of a parliamentary committee on same-sex marriage.

“Today love triumphed prejudice,after fighting for more than 20 years, today we can say that this country has marriage equality.”

Lawmakers and activists were seen celebrating in Thailand’s parliament, waving rainbow flags and smiling, with some raising their fists in solidarity with the LGBT community.

Thailand, one of Asia’s most popular tourist destinations, is already known for its vibrant LGBT culture and tolerance.

At the start of June, thousands of revellers and activists paraded through the streets of Bangkok and were joined by Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin, who wore a rainbow shirt to celebrate Pride Month.

“This would underscore Thailand’s leadership in the region in promoting human rights and gender equality,” the Civil Society Commission of marriage equality, activists and LGBTQI couples said in a statement.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a cheating case against a man who did not go through with a wedding after talks with the woman’s family.

“There can be multiple reasons for initiating a marriage proposal and then the proposal not reaching the desired end,” Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale said while cancelling a case against Raju Krishna Shedbalkar.

Raju Krishna Shedbalkar had approached the Supreme Court against a 2021 Karnataka High Court order that held him guilty of cheating under Section 417, which entails a jail term of up to one year or fine, or both.

“Time and again, this court has reiterated that in order to make out an offence under cheating the intention to cheat or deceive should be right from the beginning. By no stretch of imagination, this is even reflected from the complaint made by the informant,” the Supreme Court said.

A case was registered against Raju Krishna Shedbalkar, his brothers, sister and mother based on a complaint filed by a woman who alleged that he had cheated her by not marrying her.

The woman alleged that her family had found Mr Shedbalkar suitable for her, and both had started talking to each other.

She said her father had also paid Rs 75,000 to book a wedding venue, but she learnt that Mr Shedbalkar had married someone else.

The Karnataka High Court had dismissed the case against all the accused, except Mr Shedbalkar. The High Court noted since he had “induced the woman’s father to book a marriage hall, there is prima facie material which makes out a case”.

Overturning that decision, the Supreme Court said there was no evidence to prove that the man had any intention to cheat the woman. “It is possible theoretically yet in order to prove an offence of cheating in such cases prosecution must have reliable and trustworthy evidence in order to first prosecute such a case. There is no such evidence before the prosecution and therefore no offence under Section 417 is also made out,” the judges said.

Prayagraj:

Observing that a Hindu marriage is not valid without ‘Saptapadi’ ceremony and other rituals, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the proceedings of a case where a man alleged that his estranged wife had solemnised second marriage without divorcing him. 

Allowing a petition filed by Smriti Singh, Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed, “It is well settled that the word ‘solemnize’ means, in connection with a marriage, to celebrate the marriage with proper ceremonies and in due form. Unless the marriage is celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies and due form, it cannot be said to be solemnized.”

“If the marriage is not a valid marriage, according to the law applicable to the parties, it is not a marriage in the eyes of law. The ‘Saptapadi’ ceremony under the Hindu Law is one of the essential ingredients to constitute a valid marriage but the said evidence is lacking in the present case,” the court said in a recent order.

The court also relied on the section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides that a Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. Secondly, such rites and ceremonies include the ‘Saptapadi’ (taking seven steps by groom and bride jointly around the sacred fire), which makes the marriage complete and binding when the seventh step is taken.

While quashing the summoning order dated April 21, 2022 and further proceedings of complaint case pending before a Mirzapur court against the wife, the petitioner, the court said, “Even there is no averment with regard to ‘Saptapadi’ in the complaint as well as in the statements before the court, hence, this court is of the view that no prima-facie offence is made out against the applicant as the allegation of second marriage is a bald allegation without corroborative materials”.

The wedding of petitioner Smriti Singh was solemnized with Satyam Singh in 2017 but due to acrimonious relations, she left the house of in-laws and lodged an FIR alleging harassment for dowry. After investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the husband and in-laws. 

Later, Satyam gave an application to higher police officials making allegation of bigamy against his wife. The said application was thoroughly investigated by the circle officer Sadar, Mirzapur and allegations of bigamy against Smriti was found to be false. 

Thereafter, Satyam filed a complaint case on September 20, 2021 against his wife making allegations inter-alia that she had sanctified her second marriage. The magistrate concerned of Mirzapur on April 21, 2022 summoned Smriti. Hence she filed the present petition before the high court challenging the summoning order and the entire proceedings of complaint case. 

The counsel for the petitioner-wife contended that aforesaid complaint and summoning order is nothing but a counter-case against applicant on account of FIR lodged by her against Satyam’s family members.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)