Section 498A being exploited to coerce husband into yielding to wife’s unreasonable requirements: Supreme Court
Supreme Court highlights rising exploitation of Section498A for ‘personal revenge’
This is a section where approximately 95% of the reported cases are fabricated.. instances have been observed where cases were lodged a year after the woman vacated her marital residence; solely for the purpose of intimidating her husband & his family.
In light of the ongoing discourse surrounding the suicide of Bengaluru-based software engineer Atul Subhash, the Supreme Court has established an eight-point framework to ascertain the amount of alimony. It is claimed that Subhash took his own life due to pressure from his wife and in-laws regarding financial matters.
Prior to ending his life, Atul created an 80-minute video accusing his estranged wife Nikita Singhania and her family of extortion and intimidation. He also wrote a 24-page suicide note denouncing the justice system.
As reported by Live Law, a bench from the apex court consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale has outlined guidelines for determining the final alimony sum in a divorce scenario involving a Hindu couple.
The husband (appellant) and wife (respondent) were married for six years and maintained separate residences for nearly twenty years. The husband asserted that the wife was excessively emotional and detached from his family, whereas the wife countered with claims of mistreatment.
Below are the eight criteria identified by the top court to be taken into account while determining alimony.
•Circumstances of the parties, both social and economic.
•Essential requirements of the wife and their dependent children.
•Individual qualifications and job statuses of the parties involved.
•Any independent income or property possessed by the applicant.
•Level of lifestyle experienced by the wife within the matrimonial residence.
•Any employment sacrifices made in light of familial obligations.
•Reasonable legal expenses for a non-working wife.
•Financial capability of the husband, including his income, maintenance duties, and debts.
While the apex court recommended that all other courts adhere to these guidelines for determining a permanent alimony amount, it emphasized that the factors mentioned “do not constitute a rigid formula but serve as guidelines for determining permanent alimony.”
The court remarked that the permanent alimony sum ought to be determined in a way that neither punishes the husband nor compromises a decent living standard for the wife.
A complaint has been registered at the Marathahalli police station based on the report presented by Atul’s sibling, Bikas Kumar, against four individuals, including Atul’s wife Nikita Singhania, under sections 108 (Instigation of suicide) and 3(5) (When a criminal act is performed by multiple individuals in pursuit of a common objective) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The FIR has been lodged against Nikita Singhania, her mother Nisha Singhania, brother Anurag Singhania, and uncle Sushil Singhania. The police are expected to issue summons to all the accused, requiring their presence for questioning.
According to the FIR, the accused fabricated false charges against Atul and sought ₹3 crore to resolve the dispute. The FIR further mentions the claim that Nikita was requesting ₹30 lakh for permitting Atul to visit their son.
