Section 498A: How Legal Systems Fail to Recognize Male Victims of Violence under Gendered Laws
By Anna-Katharina Priesterath, News Editor
On December 9, 2024, Atul Subhash, a 34-year-old software engineer in Bengaluru, India, died by suicide. He left behind a letter and video tape in which he accuses his estranged wife and her family of abusing him. His estranged wife filed nine cases against him, resulting in over 120 court hearings and countless exhausting trips, both physically and mentally. This incident was followed by public outrage on the misuse of Section 498A, a law protecting women from abuse that subsequently sometimes has been misused to falsely accuse men of harassment and often closely connected to dowry.
Dowry payments, typically bride-to-groom transfers made by the parents of the bride to the family of the groom in form of cash, clothes and jewellery, have been custom in South Asia, for centuries. Although the practice became illegal in India in 1961, the phenomenon is still taking place in many marriages all over the country. Dowry is closely connected to Indian culture and takes place across all the main religions.
Research has shown that in ‘95% of marriages during 1960-2008’ (Evolution of dowry in rural India: Evidence from 1960-2008) dory was paid in rural areas of India. While the groom’s family gifts presents to the bride’s family, the estimated value is significantly lower. Families with daughters often start saving for dowry once the daughter has been born. Additionally, dowry payments are sometimes not a one-time payment and the groom’s family will expect continuing payments after the wedding from the bride’s family.
Section 498A states that men and families of men performing cruelty on a woman regarding dowry will be punished with imprisonment (source: Matrimonial Cruelty, Section 498A of IPC - Drishti Judiciary). Under this law, women and their blood family obtain the right to file complaints against the offender. Recent news of (ex-)wives emotionally abusing their husbands and using section 498A to their benefit have highlighted the problem of women misusing the law to exploit men. While Section 498A of the Indian Penalty Code (IPC) is country-specific, the issue of gendered legal systems is visible in Irish and European contexts.
Under Irish law, the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 defines rape as the non-consensual penile penetration of the vagina, meaning the perpetrator had to be a man and the victim a woman. This definition remains unchanged. However, the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 introduced a separate offence—rape under Section 4—which criminalises the penetration of the vagina by an object or the penetration of the mouth or anus by a penis. This offence coexists with the original definition of rape under Section 2 of the 1981 Act, rather than replacing it.
Doctor Catherine O’Sullivan, Senior Lecturer in Law in UCC, notes that the introduction of this offence in 1990 was welcome but is also critical of its status as a lesser offence than the offence of rape and believes that it is a product of its time. In choosing not to criminalise the non-consensual insertion of an object into an anus, the then-Minister for Justice stated that the anus was not a sexual organ and specifically downplayed the insertion of objects into the anuses of men. Yet, as Doctor O’Sullivan observes, ‘men and women whose anus was penetrated with an object without their consent would certainly regard that experience as rape and denying them access to that term diminishes the harm done to them.’
She continues ‘While women constitute the vast majority of people who are subjected to sexual violence, the exclusion of this form of sexual violence from the label of rape, and justifying it with reference to “horseplay” between boys as the then-Minister did, plays into a social and cultural context where males who have been sexually abused are reluctant to report it or seek help. The 2022 Central Statistics Office “Sexual Violence Survey” found that 80% of men and 82% of women agreed with the statement “Men may be too embarrassed to say they have been raped”’.
Section 498A was introduced to protect women from dowry-related abuse. However, cases such as the suicide of Atul Subhash after years of abuse and terror from his estranged wife Singhania and her family highlight that not every victim of abuse is a woman. While Section 498A is still vital in protecting women from abuse in relation to dowry payments, there has been public outrage about cases of women using this law to blackmail men for dowry payments. It is crucial to recognize that majority of victims of dowry abuse are women, while also considering solutions for men falling victim to prevent further suicides and harm. Arul Subhash left a 24-page suicide note and an 81-minute video in which he explicitly describes the terror he went through (source: Atul Subhash: A man's suicide leads to clamour around India's dowry law). Section 498A remains crucial despite misuse.
Cases of women misusing section 498A have been widely discussed whereas there is room to discuss if not every law can be misused. Instead of creating a divide between men and women in this matter, it is important to look at the actual problem. Dowry has caused abuse, violence, and death on both sides. Reporting on this issue that is predominantly seen in South Asia, and as per example India, is important to understand the misuse of laws generally. Legal frameworks can be both protective and prone to exploitation.
Additionally, learning about international issues not only helps to better our understanding of different cultural contexts and issues, but also our own. Section 498A is a gendered law, which excludes male victims and enables misuse. This law, similar to some sexual violence and rape laws in Irland and the EU is not gender neutral. Ireland’s Criminal Law Act from 1981 initially defined that only a man can be a rapist. That is certainly not true, and while the law has been updated, through reinforcing gender biases, the stigma coming from such legal frameworks remains.
It is important to recognize that any victim receives support and space to share their story. Male victims must be recognized under law. The law is shaped by society and in the same way shapes society. The law not recognizing men as potential victims feeds into gender biases and outdated stereotypes. Male victims suffer under a system of patriarchy that does not recognize them as victims because of their gender.
I asked Doctor Neel Mani Tripathi, who obtained a postdoc in Law II in India, on his opinion regarding the misuse of Section 498A. He shared with me that while male victims of domestic violence exist and deserve attention, it is crucial to recognize the statistics that show that 45% of married women in India have faced abuse, in contrast to 17% married men. Doctor Neel Mani Tripathi states that ‘this reality justifies the law’s intent while reminding us that no gender has a monopoly on suffering.’
Doctor Neel Mani Tripathi has advocated for judicial digitalization for ensuring swift justice for genuine victims while preventing misuse of laws. By leveraging technology, harassment can be reduced, transparency enhanced, and corruption minimized. A digitalization of court proceedings could make justice more accessible overall. He concluded his viewpoint on Section 498A in the following:
‘In sum, Section 498A is a double-edged sword – essential for protecting women, yet open to abuse if not applied with care. The existence of a few male victims of domestic violence (and a minority who face false cases) should not undermine the law’s importance, but it absolutely calls for procedural safeguards and reforms. We must strive for a balance: ensure that no genuine victim is deterred from coming forward, while no innocent family is put through hell via misused laws. The onus is on our judicial system to evolve by tightening checks on false complaints and by modernizing through digital transformation so that justice is swift, transparent, and equitable for all. This will require political will and investment in technology, but the payoff in reduced case pendency and restored public faith would be priceless.’