In his petition, Dhawan said his ex-wife, an Australian national, refused to shift to India, thereby separating him from his son, who is also an Australian national. The petition also cited how Mukerji had forced Dhawan to buy certain properties in Australia in her name or make her the joint owner. Most of the allegations were not contested by Mukerji in court and in a major relief for the cricketer, he was granted visitation rights to his son in Australia.
The court order has generated a lot of interest in social media and rightly so. Many individuals, especially men, have found themselves stuck in bad marriages and made to agree to unfair or disproportionate financial settlements. The threat of criminal cases or harassment induced by the legal processes creates an unwanted fear psychosis. The laws, which have been framed to aid women who battle unequal power equations in society and centuries-old regressive norms, are often prone to misuse because our enforcement mechanisms are faulty.
The clear statement of the problem should not be interpreted to mean that women are some evil forces out there to harass men. This not an argument of misogyny. But rather a clear problem statement that has emerged from the recent matters before lawyers and courts.
The issue deserves an open debate but before that, what it really needs is an acknowledgement that the divorce process in India needs a relook. A man or a woman suffering in a bad marriage must have the opportunity to end it while the law ensures that they fulfil their obligations.
In the case of Dhawan, his ex-wife did not contest most allegations. She also accepted her inability to shift to India. Fortunately, there were no counter-criminal cases that were filed against Dhawan. This was comparatively an easy case and hence, the cricketer was able to obtain the order in his favour.
In most cases, counter-litigations, and inordinate delays would lead to frustration of one side. Again, this leaves mostly men at the receiving end, because they don’t have the tool of revenge litigations being filed.
The realisation of misuse of law is not new. Let’s go back to the Supreme Court judgment in 2017 which laid down that there would be no immediate arrest in cases of 498A. The court had taken into cognisance the rampant misuse of the section to harass relatives, siblings, and the elderly in the family. The court reiterated the procedure under the Criminal Procedure Code that there must be a thorough enquiry before arrests are made by the police authorities.
Can there be a bigger tragedy than the fact that the law, which was framed in a country where dowry deaths are rampant, became a tool of abuse and could never serve the cause of women who were the real victims of dowry harassment?
Dhawan’s case is not exactly the prototype or the sample case of misuse of law as his ex-wife did not resort to revenge litigation.
However, this case has been highlighted to shatter a popular discourse which refuses to recognise men as victims in matrimonial disputes and discords. Women have historically suffered due to unequal social and religious structures. But the dawn of the 21st century has shown that no gender has universal right to victimhood.
While the laws must aid to uplift the historically underprivileged, they must also ensure that no section is presumed to be an offender or put in a position where they are guilty till proven innocent.
Changing dynamics of marriage is the biggest reality of our times. Society and laws are struggling to cope up with these changing paradigms and in these times, there are no universal victims or offenders.
Comments
0 comment