Bengaluru Techie's Suicide: Divorce Laws Aren't Immune to Misuse

His reasons for taking his life were undoubtedly personal, but at the heart of it lay a system that failed him.

Atul, a 34-year-old father and tech professional from Bengaluru, allegedly died by suicide, unable to meet his own child for months while being entangled in relentless legal battles with his estranged wife and her family.

(Photo: Aroop Mishra/The Quint)

(Trigger Warning: Mention of suicide. If you feel suicidal or know someone in distress, please reach out to them with kindness. You can reach out to local emergency services, helplines, and mental health NGOs here.)

As a lawyer representing clients from all walks of life, you develop a certain detachment from procedural formalities. This necessary distancing, perhaps, helps navigate the chaos of the system and focus on the human stories behind the paperwork. Then one sees a case like Atul Subhash, and the reality of how many lives hang by a thread in courtrooms every day becomes painfully clear.

Atul, a 34-year-old father and tech professional from Bengaluru, allegedly died by suicide, unable to meet his own child for months while being entangled in relentless legal battles with his estranged wife and her family. His reasons for taking his life were undoubtedly complex and personal, but at the heart of it lay a system that failed him.

The slow grind of the judiciary, the emotional toll of separation, and the inability to find resolution broke him, just as it has broken so many others who feel abandoned by the very mechanisms meant to deliver justice.

Divorce Laws Not Immune to Misuse

In India, the laws governing divorce, alimony, and domestic issues are designed to provide equitable remedies and safeguard vulnerable parties, particularly women, who historically have faced systemic discrimination and oppression. However, these laws, while essential, are not immune to misuse.

A segment of critics argues that some women exploit legal provisions for unjust personal gain, thereby undermining the very intent of justice and fairness embedded in the legal system.

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) reports on suicide often misleadingly attribute deaths to a single cause. Nearly 75% of all suicides are linked to a few predominant factors.

Family-related problems and distress caused by physical and mental health conditions together account for a little over half of all reported causes of suicide.

Marriage and relationship-related issues rank as the third leading cause of death by suicide. Notably, this is one of the few areas where the number of men and women dying by suicide is closely comparable.

The Indian legal system provides several statutes to address issues of marriage, divorce, and maintenance.

The key laws include:

• The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which governs marriage and divorce among Hindus and provides for alimony and maintenance

• The Special Marriage Act, 1954, is a secular law, allowing interfaith marriages and governing associated legal remedies

• The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005, which protects women against domestic violence and provides for monetary relief, residence rights, and maintenance

• Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which ensures financial support to wives, children, and parents unable to maintain themselves.

These laws aim to provide economic security to women post-divorce or separation, ensuring they do not face destitution. However, the enforcement and application of these laws have occasionally given rise to allegations of misuse.

How the Laws Get Misused

The misuse of laws by women in divorce and alimony cases is a contentious issue.

Critics often cite the following ways in which the laws are allegedly misused:

• Exaggerated claims of domestic violence, where women reportedly file false claims under the PWDVA or Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (pertaining to cruelty by the husband or his relatives), allegedly done to extract larger settlements or to harass the husband’s family

• Demands for excessive alimony, with accusations of inflating financial needs or hiding sources of income to claim higher alimony or maintenance

• Custody manipulations, where children are allegedly used as leverage to extract financial benefits or emotional concessions from the husband

• Prolonging litigation, where women are accused of intentionally delaying court proceedings to prolong financial support or harass their estranged partners

• The misuse of interim maintenance provisions by filing frivolous cases to secure temporary financial benefits

A stark example of procedural lapses is the non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s directives in Rajnesh vs. Neha, which mandates that both parties submit their financial statements along with sworn affidavits in family court proceedings. Despite this clear directive, it is far from being implemented rigorously. Inadequate mechanisms to verify claims and the absence of penalties for false accusations encourage frivolous litigation.

The judicial system remains overburdened, and a common strategy involves filing a "package of cases" under laws such as the Domestic Violence Act, maintenance provisions, and divorce on grounds of mental cruelty.

This practice often entangles parties in prolonged legal battles, where the intent shifts from seeking justice to exerting pressure through multiple legal forums. Genuine victims of gender-based violence within their homes and marriages find it increasingly difficult to navigate the labyrinth of false cases designed to maximise financial gains, leaving them further marginalised and justice elusive.

The Problem of Conflicting Interpretations

Couple this non-compliance of the apex court's directives with orders by multiple high courts and benches that issue conflicting interpretations on the same issue – and the chaos deepens.

For instance, about adultery, especially after its decriminalisation, while one bench may claim that it serves as valid grounds for denial of maintenance, another bench makes proving adultery so impractical that it effectively negates denial on those grounds. Such contradictory orders sow confusion, leaving clients oscillating between hope and despair as they grapple with the unpredictability of outcomes in an already emotionally taxing situation.

The alleged misuse of laws stems from several systemic issues. Broad legal provisions, such as Section 498A of the IPC, are non-bailable and cognizable, which critics argue are prone to misuse due to their wide scope and lack of safeguards against false allegations. Ironically, societal biases against women often lead to overcompensation through legal provisions, which does create room for misuse. The slow pace of the judicial system exacerbates the issue, as prolonged litigation provides opportunities for exploitation by either party.

The misuse of laws has far-reaching implications, affecting individuals and the broader legal and social framework. The misuse of laws diminishes the credibility of genuine victims, making it harder for them to access justice. Frivolous cases burden the already overburdened judiciary, delaying justice for genuine cases. Perceptions of misuse undermine public trust in the fairness and impartiality of the legal system.

Allegations of misuse fuel gender-based animosity, detracting from the larger goal of gender equality.

The Law Needs to Safeguard Genuine Victims

To address the issue of misuse while safeguarding the rights of genuine victims, a balanced approach is essential.

Introducing legal consequences for filing false claims can deter misuse and ensure accountability.

Fast-tracking cases and improving investigative procedures can help distinguish genuine cases from frivolous ones. Encouraging financial independence through education and employment opportunities can reduce the reliance on alimony and maintenance. Promoting alternative dispute resolution mechanisms can help resolve conflicts amicably and reduce litigation.

The allegations of misuse of divorce and alimony laws by women in India highlight the complex interplay between gender, law, and justice. While it is crucial to address instances of misuse to protect the integrity of the legal system, it is equally important to ensure that the discourse does not undermine the rights of genuine victims or perpetuate patriarchal norms.

A nuanced approach that balances rights and responsibilities, coupled with systemic reforms, can ensure that the legal framework achieves its intended objective of justice and equality for all.

(Tahini Bhushan is partner at Tatvika Legal, a full-service law firm based out of Delhi-NCR. The views expressed are the author’s own. This is an opinion piece, and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)