MISUSE OF THE LAW RESULTED IN BENGALURU TECHIE SUICIDE CASE

On 9^th December, 2024, an Engineer in Bengaluru committed suicide sending shock waves in society. The reason for the suicide was the extreme harassment of Atul Subhash at the hands of his wife Nikita Singhania and in-laws who he claimed had filed false cases against him making him run from pillar to post to defend himself. Ultimately after 2 years of appearing in different courts in UP he took his life and left behind a suicide letter citing the reasons for his death.

In the early 60’s and 70’s India was going through a phase where several women were made victims of matrimonial disputes that pertained to demand for dowry and in some cases even dowry deaths. This resulted in the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961(Dowry Act) that addressed this problem. In brief the Dowry Act was for the protection of such women who were victims of matrimonial disputes. Today the tables have seemed to have turned and the man is being hounded and harassed very often in false cases. In that sense it seems that life has taken a full circle.

The Dowry Act that seeks to protect women was enacted to promote the following objectives:

1.  To promote marital and family harmony.

2. To effectively work for creating a dowry free society.

3. To provide a base to fight against the abuse of dowry laws.

4. To create awareness about the present cruelty/dowry/harassment related laws and their damaging effects on the family.

5. To provide emotional, legal and social support to the innocent people who are affected by the vindictive implication of the dowry laws. To provide legal aid to the weaker and needy section of the community.

6. To safeguard children welfare and integrity of Indian families.

7. To safeguard interests of elderly people and their respect in society and to discourage elder abuse through dowry related laws.

8. To promote deterrents against malicious complaints and arrests without investigation. To discourage malicious prosecutions in matrimonial cases.

In April 2019, Atul Subhash, a Bengaluru-based software engineer, married Nikita Singhania through a matrimonial site. Initially they were fine, and in 2020 the couple was blessed with a son. However, marital discord began surfacing by 2021 when Nikita accused Atul of harassment. She moved out of their Bengaluru home with their son and allegedly started demanding substantial sums of money, including ₹3 crore for a legal settlement and ₹30 lakh for granting visitation rights to their child.

The situation escalated in 2022 when Nikita filed multiple cases against Atul and his family, including charges under the Dowry Prohibition Act and various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such as Section 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation). Over time, Atul reportedly faced over 40 court notices within a year, which caused him to spend nearly 120 days traveling for court appearances. These legal battles allegedly led to severe financial and emotional distress.

Atul claimed that the allegations against him were baseless and fabricated. He also accused Nikita’s family of weaponizing the legal system to extort money and harass him and his family. In his suicide note, he detailed how these legal proceedings, combined with demands for large sums of money, drained him emotionally and financially. He also alleged judicial misconduct, stating that a judge in Uttar Pradesh mocked him during hearings and demanded ₹5 lakh to settle a case.

On December 9, 2024, Atul was found dead in his Bengaluru residence. Before taking his life, he left behind a 24-page suicide note and recorded an 80-minute video, accusing his wife, her family, and the judiciary of harassment and systemic bias. He expressed his wish for his son’s custody to be granted to his parents and requested that his ashes be thrown in a court gutter if justice was not served.

Following Atul’s suicide, his family filed an FIR against Nikita and her family under charges of abetment of suicide and joint criminal liability. Nikita’s family denied the allegations and reportedly fled their residence after being named in the FIR. Incidentally the wife Niketa is working for Accenture.

This tragic incident has reignited debates on the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC, which was originally enacted to protect women from cruelty in marriage. Critics argue that the provision has, in some instances, been exploited to file false cases, leading to undue harassment of men and their families. Atul’s death underscores the emotional and financial toll that prolonged and contentious marital disputes can impose.

Supreme Court’s Stand on Misuse of Domestic Violence Laws

The Supreme Court of India has previously acknowledged the misuse of laws like Section 498A in several landmark judgments. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 2756), the Court mandated judicial scrutiny before arrests under Section 498A to prevent unnecessary harassment.

Similarly, in Rajesh Sharma v. State of UP (AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 3869), it recommended pre-litigation mediation and safeguards against frivolous cases. The Court has emphasized the need for balanced judicial mechanisms that protect genuine victims while preventing the misuse of legal provisions. It has also suggested reforms, such as making Section 498A gender-neutral and introducing stricter penalties for filing false cases.

Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others vs. State of Telangana & Another (2024 INSC 953)

In this recent case, the Supreme Court dealt with allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court quashed the FIR against the in-laws, finding the allegations vague and unsupported by evidence. It noted that the proceedings were likely to be a retaliatory measure, following the husband’s divorce petition, and emphasized that the provisions under Section 498A could be misused in matrimonial disputes. The judgment highlights the importance of specific and credible allegations to avoid the abuse of legal provisions, especially in cases involving in-laws, to prevent unnecessary harassment. This judgment underscores the potential misuse of domestic violence laws when allegations are vague or unsubstantiated.

Parvin Kumar Jain vs. Anju Jain (2024 INSC 961)

In another matter, the Supreme Court, in the context of a divorce case between Praveen Kumar Jain and Anju Jain, outlined an eight-point formula to determine alimony amounts. This was brought to the forefront amid the public outcry following the suicide of Bengaluru techie Atul Subhash, who had accused his wife of harassment. The case sparked a broader debate on the misuse of dowry laws.

The eight factors to be considered when determining alimony are as follows:

1.  Social and economic status of both parties.

2. Basic needs of the wife and child/children in the future.

3. Qualification and employment status of both individuals.

4. Assets and sources of income.

5. Standard of living of the wife during marriage.

6. Whether the wife left her job to care for the family.

7. Reasonable costs for legal proceedings for the unemployed spouse.

8. Financial status of the husband, his earnings, and responsibilities for maintenance.

The Court also emphasized the need to set aside Rs 1 crore for the maintenance and financial security of the child involved in the case.

In the Atul Subhash suicide case, he left behind a video and a note accusing his wife, Nikita, and her family of harassment. Subhash’s family claims he was subjected to increasing demands for child maintenance and other financial harassment.

 

Legal and Societal Implications

This cases highlights the complexities of domestic violence laws and their potential for misuse. While these laws are vital for addressing genuine cases of abuse, their exploitation can result in severe consequences for the accused. Atul’s tragic death emphasizes the urgent need for judicial reforms to ensure justice for all parties, safeguard the integrity of protective laws, and prevent their misuse as tools of harassment. The incident serves as a grim reminder of the psychological toll of unresolved marital disputes and the systemic flaws that can exacerbate such situations.

Connecting Themes:

Misuse of Legal Provisions: All the cases illustrate how legal provisions designed to protect individuals can be weaponized, either through vague and unsupported allegations, manipulation of financial obligations or false accusations and retaliatory legal measures.

Emotional and Financial Distress: The legal battles depicted in the cases caused severe emotional and financial distress, leading to dire consequences. The personal toll on the accused highlights the need for a balanced legal approach that prevents misuse while protecting genuine victims.

Judicial Oversight and Safeguards: The Supreme Court’s stance in the past, as seen in cases like Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and Rajesh Sharma v. State of UP (2017), calling for judicial scrutiny and safeguards against frivolous claims, is reiterated in the latest cases. The need for pre-litigation mediation, stringent checks before arrest and the introduction of penalties for false accusations are critical to prevent unnecessary legal battles that can lead to harm.

In Conclusion, one feels that the above Cases show the urgent need for the amendment in the Law. The matrimonial Laws should be gender neutral in order to enable a party to safeguard and protect against the misuse of domestic violence laws, ensuring that the laws remain a tool for justice and not a weapon for personal or financial exploitation.

In recent times several wives have taken advantage of the matrimonial laws and filed false cases demanding huge sums of money and property to settle the matter. They have successfully been able to extort money and properties by their threats and misusing the Law as a trump card. Criminal action should be taken against such women for filing false cases and blackmailing the husband and in-laws. Even if few such cases are filed against these wives it will put fear in the minds of women before they make false cases.

Atul Subhash’s tragic death serves as a stark reminder of the psychological toll that unsubstantiated claims and systemic biases can have on individuals involved in marital disputes. Legal reforms should aim to balance protection of genuine victims with prevention of abuse of the legal system. It also rings as a clarion bell calling for immediate change in the matrimonial Law in India

Sushila Ram Varma

Advocate & Chief Consultant

The Indian Lawyer

Assisted by:

Parichaya Reddy

Associate