In a deeply tragic the case of Bengaluru techie Atul Subhas brings to light the severe flaws and bias in our legal system that allow misuse of laws against men. Atul, a young man, became a victim of systemic bias and legal harassment by his estranged wife, Nikita Singhania.

Bengaluru Police has sincerely arrested Nikita where we observed that

• Nikita appearance and expression was not of a widow
• Nikita Mother carrying a mineral-water bottle, which is unusual

No sign of sindoor, no indication of widowhood, and not even an expression of sorrow or pain.

“As she herself not considering Atul’s widow, she should not be allowed to exercise her right as wife.”, Kumar S Ratan.

As per Nikita appearance, if she did not consider herself Atul’s wife then with WHAT RIGHTS she was begging money in court. In the case, for over 3 years, Nikita Singhania pursued many legal battles, demanding an exorbitant sum of ₹3 crore as alimony which we call it extortion by legal means. Her lack of mourning attire and indifferent demeanor, raising questions about her sincerity in the relationship and her legal claims.

In the Atul’s last note he revealed various facts that Nikita leveraged gender-biased laws as a weapon. Her demands and relentless litigation drained him emotionally and financially which led Atul to take the drastic step of sacrificing his life.

“how many more men has to be sacrificed for women empowerment.”, Kumar S Ratan

The question arises here that why laws continue to treat men as default perpetrators and women as default victims. If Nikita herself did not recognize Atul as her husband, as her actions suggested, why was she allowed to pursue such massive claims in court?

This case highlights:

• Misuse of Legal Provisions: Nikita used alimony claims as a tool of harassment rather than a genuine need for support.
• Lack of Accountability: The law enabled Nitika to harass Atul for years without substantial proof of a legitimate marital relationship. The bias inherent in matrimonial laws left Atul with no viable legal or emotional recourse.

Atul’s case is just not a single case, but it reflects a growing trend where men are subjected to false accusations, excessive demands, legal extortion, and emotional abuse under the guise of legal battles.

Key Demands:

• She should not be allowed to exercise her right as wife.
• Gender-neutral matrimonial laws to ensure fairness for both parties.
• Stricter penalties for misuse of legal provisions to harass individuals.
• Mechanisms to evaluate the authenticity of alimony claims before burdening individuals with prolonged legal battles.

Atul Subhas’s sacrifice should not be in vain. This case calls for urgent attention to the flaws in our legal system and for reforms to prevent further tragedies like his.

Also Read: newsofx2.com

The bench in the matter observed the ‘IPC Section 498A as weapon rather than the shield.’

“The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.”

The bench referring the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, observed that crime under IPC section 498A was the 4.5 percentage of total crime which was higher than all the crimes except theft and hurt. Also that under the IPC section 498A, more than 47 thousand females were arrested. The bench further observed that the ratio of charge sheet was more than 93 percent while conviction rate was only 15 percent.

“Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code.”

The bench said that arrest bring humiliation which law makers understand while police has not learnt.

“Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is a battle between the law makers and the police and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the Cr.PC.”

Further the bench stated about the need of balance between “individual liberty and societal order”.

“Law Commissions, Police Commissions and this Court in a large number of judgments emphasized the need to maintain a balance between individual liberty and societal order while exercising the power of arrest…Apart from power to arrest, the police officers must be able to justify the reasons thereof. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person…the Parliament had to intervene and on the recommendation of the 177th Report of the Law Commission submitted in the year 2001, Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.PC), in the present form came to be enacted”

The bench further asked all the State Government to pass appropriate instruction to police officers to stop automatic arrest.

“All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;”

Click to get the copy of order of Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr