New Delhi, Oct 08: When asked, ‘‘What objection do you have to Section 489A being made compoundable?’’ my first reaction was: public memory is so short. Few remember the how and the why of Section 498A and its origins. Even fewer can make the connections between Section 498A and staying alive. Fewer still can make the connection between being alive and being dead, that is the connection between Section 498A and Section 304B. Section 498A address the woman at the point when she is still alive and Section 304B after she is dead. One cannot be understood without the other. Indeed, so strong is the connection between the two that Section 304B refers to Section 498A. And yet nobody make the connections. Does anyone ever argue that Section 304B is being ‘‘misused’’? How could they, the dead body is proof enough that the woman died! Then why the argument that Section 498A is being ‘‘misused’’? Perhaps because there is no dead body to prove the woman has been subjected to cruelty. There is only her word for it. It seems a woman has to die to be believed.

I had a strange experience one week. During the course of seven days, I received four requests for legal aid for women in distress. I gave appointments to each of them. On the appointed date, the family of the woman turned up to tell me the woman was dead.
Between the time they decided to access legal help and actually accessed it, they were dead. That is the journey from Section 498A to Section 304B, that is the distance.
The demand for Section 304B actually came before Section 498A. That a number of women were dying in their matrimonial homes gave birth to the demand for Section 304B. Women like Satya Rani Chadda, who lost her daughter, made it their mission to ensure other daughters did not die similarly.
Section 304B states if a woman dies within seven years of marriage in unnatural circumstances (burnt in the ‘‘kitchen’’ by a ‘‘stove burst’’ or hanging from the ceiling fan) and it is proved she had been subjected to cruelty before death, this would constitute a ‘‘dowry death’’ or murder.
Obviously we needed a definition of ‘‘cruelty’’. Section 498A was brought onto the statute book at the same time as Section 304B. The two are part of a composite scheme.
Section 498A was introduced to address the situation of a woman when she was alive to tell the story. After all the aim of every law is to prevent crime, not just punish it after it happens. Section 498A was intended to prevent women from dying a ‘‘dowry death’’.
Alas it has not achieved its purpose. Instead we are being told it is being ‘‘misused’’, breaking up families, as if it were meant to be a legal intervention to keep marriages going.
These laments are now being heard from judges. Perhaps they are innocent of the origins of Section 498A. These judges confuse the role and purpose of criminal law and their own role with that of marriage counsellors.
The need for Section 498A is to be found in the rising graph of wife murders. Crime statistics tell the tale. I have personally dealt with the case of a woman who left her husband due to his extreme cruelty. She filed a complaint under Section 498A. As usual, nothing happened.
On an average, it takes about six months at the Crime Against Women Cell for any FIR to be registered. During that period, the police attempt ‘‘reconciliation’’.
In the meantime, the woman’s husband took away her minor son. She came to our office seeking legal help to get her son back. We filed a habeas corpus petition.
The case came up in the high court. The judges told her to attempt ‘‘reconciliation’’. She knew it was futile but the judges persisted. She decided to give it one more chance,for the sake of her child.
But within two months she was dead. Her husband owned, of all things, a kerosene dealer’s shop. She was found dead in his office. He claimed she poured kerosene over herself and committed suicide! Her name was Sonia Mehendile.
There are so many like her. Who will take responsibility for the failed ‘‘reconciliation’’? So much for the use and misuse of Section 498A.
Now comes the news that Section 498A should be made compoundable, all in the name of facilitating ‘‘reconciliation’’. To this my answer is: look at the origin of Section 498A, understand its links with Section 304B and remember its object is to give women a legal tool to deal with cruelty while they are alive.
Few women will access 498A if they wish to keep their marriage alive. We are dealing with a category of women whose marriage is dysfunctional. For them, the only solution is a parting with dignity.
What is needed is a civil law on domestic violence to deal with women who want to stop violence, need time to review their relationship and life options. These are women who wish to negotiate their problems with their husbands in an atmosphere free of violence, physical or mental.
It is only a judicious mix of civil and criminal law that will find a solution to domestic violence. Today we do not have a civil law, we have only a criminal law that deals with the issue. Women are accessing the criminal law not because they want to ‘‘misuse’’ it but because they have no option.
No society can simultaneously deny its citizens a civil legal remedy and claim a criminal remedy is being ‘‘misused’’.
Making Section 498A compoundable is opening the door wider to Section 304B. What is needed is to keep Section 498A non-compoundable, to demonstrate the seriousness of the threat posed by cruelty to the right to life.
Simultaneously, we need a civil law on domestic violence, which will enable women to negotiate a non-abusive, non-violent matrimonial relationship. In such a law, judges would have a legitimate role in effecting either reconciliation or a parting of ways.