Last update:
The Supreme Court has agreed that some men may have been victims of cases of false dowry, but also pointed out that the law cannot be changed for the protection of women in marriage homes.
Supreme Court of India. (PTI)
The Supreme Court recognized on Tuesday that some men and their families may have falsified for women in cases of dowry harassment under section 498a of the CPI (now section 85 of the BNS) but indicated to Prialty.
“Only because or certain cases of misuse of section 498a or CPI and section 85 or Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, can a radical statement be made that women are harassing their hausbandas and in -laws? Nothya, more of the thorn and the tone of the spine and more than one spike and ”« Etya Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Yyyyyy adhes that you owe, and from and from y, and of and of being observed Yyyyy Nine Singh.
The court pointed out that in the vast majority of cases, it is women who have to face harassment in marriage. “Therefore, the law and the courts will deal with each cordination of the case to the facts in it,” said the bank.
The comments of the court occurred when listening to an NGO ‘Janshruti’ NGO that sought a judicial intervention to address “critical conerns that surround the marriage laws, particularly the misuse and application or the crest.”
The lawyer who represents the NGO said that the Superior Court must make section 498A or CPI and section 85 of BNS “gender neutral” to make sure that the victim of cruelty is a man or a woman, is protected in marriage houses. The lawyer also urged the Court to take measures to avoid the laws, such as making initial investigation and mediation mandatory before any trial is issued.
On the argument of the amendments to the sections of IPC and BNS, the Superior Court that this falls in the domain of the Legislature.
“Representatives of 142 million millions of rupees are in Parliament, and will decide what form the legislation can take. As constitutional courts, we can intervene only when we discover certain vacurers in the legal framework,” said the bank.
When the petitioner suggested enforcing a 60 -day time limit to decide the cases of maintenance, the justice side questioned how practical it was, asking: “Do you realize how many courts, judges and the staff most need? Who will build the Strait of Infrast?”
The Supreme Court dismissed the pill, saying that it depends on the financial capacity of each state. If a State is willing, you can establish more courts, after discussing it with the Superior Court in question, to accelerate such cases.
