Today the Times of India reported the case of a husband who committed suicide after his wife passed remarks on him that he was ugly and impotent. The Honorable Supreme Court quashed the prosecution of the wife saying, “Interestingly, there was no suicide note. Admittedly, marriage was an arranged one. If that is so, it is not believable that the deceased and the accused had not met. The alleged grievance of the accused that the deceased was an ugly man could not have been noticed after marriage, for the first time on 3.6.2004. The date of marriage was 29.5.2004. It is fairly well settled that words uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.”
But has the Honorable Supreme Court missed out certain points in arriving to its conclusion. Were the following points a part of the thought process used at arriving at the judgment?
1) The man knew he was ugly looking and having wed to a beautiful wife, must have had a certain inherent insecurity. This inherent insecurity in itself was torturous for the man. Coupled with that, his wife’s insulting and humiliating remarks would have only added fuel to the fire. And the poor man would have felt all the more tortured and insecure.
2) Keeping in mind the above fact, coupled with the fact that men are subjected to emotional castration right from the age of 6 leading to the development of a reserve persona, the situation of mental agony undergone by the husband is anyone’s imagination.
3) The society as well does not support weak men, the way it supports weak women. Weak men are ridiculed and packed off as irresponsible. This has created so much distress and distrust in the men for the society that they are not at all comfortable sharing their problems with the society and ultimately die a silent death being unable to bear the pain. This not only explains the high rate (almost double) of suicide amongst married men but also the absence of any proper communication channel for the men that neither does invalidate their pain nor justify their issues.
4) Venkateshwara Rao, the deceased in this particular case also suffered from the above scenario and thus he found no use leaving behind a suicide note as he had no trust on the system that his sacrifice would yield any result.
5) If he was so ugly why did she marry him if we go by the arguments in the judgment that they must have met before marrying as it was an arranged marriage. Is it that people fall in love marriages without seeing each other? On the contrary, in villages it is quite common a practice that people don’t meet each other before marrying. Hence the argument that, “The alleged grievance of the accused that the deceased was an ugly man could not have been noticed after marriage”, directly invalidates the man’s problem and pain.
The situation is so pathetic for men that even their death is not sufficient to grant them justice. They have to die in a particular manner to be expectant of justice, let alone be fortunate enough to be bestowed with. Whereas for women, the society and the judiciary is very happy to pass the blame on the men and penalize them even only on assumptions and in the absence of any tangible evidence which only tells us how grim is the situation for men in India.
It is often argued against the misuse of dowry laws that so what if false cases are filed, the men are ultimately declared innocent and let off. But no one realizes that the judicial process and the criminal justice system in India has so deteriorated and is so anti – men that the process itself is barbaric than the punishment.
It’s high time the judiciary realizes its responsibility towards men, especially husbands, and gives them their due right to fair and impartial justice, lest the men loose all hope with the institution and resort to take the law in their own hands.