3rd of the average conviction rate of all IPC cases. The low conviction rate looks even worse when one considers the fact that this category features consistently in the top 10 in terms of the numbers of registered cases. To make matters worse, in 9 out of the 10 years from 2006-2015, cases filed under this category had conviction rates in the bottom three when compared with all other categories and was the lowest in 3 of those 10. To put things in perspective, while the number of convictions were consistently decreasing, the numbers of acquittals have been constantly on the rise.

Contrary to the spirit of Justice which assumes that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, IPC 498A assumes exactly the opposite as it was originally framed. It effectively fell on the accused to prove his innocence rather than on the accuser of proving guilt.

Just laws are framed based after a critical evaluation of existing reality. Such a law was formulated on the basis of the Feminist Doctrine which presumes all men are oppressors and the women oppressed. Thus, it follows that the rights of women are to be safeguarded by laws that award a disproportionate power to women to balance the ‘privilege’ granted to men by ‘patriarchy’. Such a mindset is reflected when the law automatically presumes the potential guilt of all men and the innocence of all women with regard to such allegations. The Law formulated clearly assumes that women are always truthful when they file such complaints contrary to the obvious reality that women are as much prone to lying as men.

The Feminist reaction to the guidelines set by the Supreme Court only confirm my assertions. An article on FirstPost penned by one Deya Bhattacharya, who is quite obviously a Feminist, titled ‘Domestic violence: Supreme Court verdict on Section 498A puts family honour over women’s rights’ claims, “It (the Bench of the Supreme Court) ignores the historical underrepresentation and oppression of women in all phases of life that has given rise to gender inequality within public and private spaces and attempts to read down a protective legal provision meant for women for the pre-empted violation of men’s rights.” Apparently, curbing the egregious misuse of law is victimizing women. Deya Bhattacharya concludes her article with the words, “This Supreme Court direction is regressive and goes against all that we have tried to achieve for women’s rights in private spaces in India.” It is pretty clear that F
3rd of the average conviction rate of all IPC cases. The low conviction pace expect even worse when one consider the fact that this class features consistently in the top 10 in terms of the phone number of registered cases. To stool matters worse, in 9 out of the 10 years from 2006 - 2015, shell filed under this class had conviction rates in the bottom three when compared with all other categories and was the lowest in 3 of those 10. To frame things in perspective, while the number of conviction were consistently decreasing, the numbers of acquittals have been constantly on the ascent. 

 Contrary to the spirit of Justice which assumes that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, IPC 498A assumes precisely the opposite as it was originally framed. It effectively fell on the accused to prove his innocence rather than on the accuser of proving guilt. 

 Just laws are framed based after a critical evaluation of existing reality. Such a law was explicate on the basis of the Feminist Doctrine which presumes all valet are oppressor and the womanhood oppressed. Thus, it follow that the rights of women are to be safeguarded by laws that award a disproportionate baron to women to balance the ‘ privilege ’ granted to men by ‘ patriarchy ’. Such a mentality is reflected when the law automatically presumes the potential guilt of all men and the innocence of all woman with regard to such allegations. The Law formulated clearly assumes that charwoman are always truthful when they file such complaints adverse to the obvious reality that woman are as much prone to lie as men. 

 The Feminist chemical reaction to the guidelines set by the Supreme Court only confirm my assertions. An article on FirstPost penned by one Deya Bhattacharya, who is quite obviously a Feminist, entitle ‘ Domestic violence: Supreme Court verdict on Section 498A arrange family honor over women ’s rights ’ claim, “ It (the Bench of the Supreme Court) ignores the diachronic underrepresentation and oppression of women in all phases of life that has given rise to gender inequality within public and private spaces and attempts to take down a protective legal provision meant for womanhood for the pre - empted violation of men ’s right. ” Apparently, curbing the egregious misuse of police is victimizing women. Deya Bhattacharya concludes her article with the words, “ This Supreme Court direction is regressive and goes against all that we have try to achieve for charwoman ’s right in private spaces in India. ” It is pretty clear that F
3rd lf the average convictiok rate of all IPE cases. The lkw conviztion rate looks even worse xhen one xonsiders the fact thag this canegory feqturts consistently ii the toi 10 in berms if the numbers of registared cases. To kaye matters worse, in 9 out of the 10 yearf from 2006-2015, cwses filed undgr thps catsgory had conviction rates in the gottom uhree when comparec with all other categoried anf was the lowest ij 3 of those 10. To put things iv perspectpre, while thg number of convictions were conristeutly decreawibg, hve numbers if aczuittals havc been wonstanyly on the risc.

Contcary to the spirit of Jusvice which assumes trat everymnz is innocent until peocen goilty, IPC 498Q arsujex sxactlj tie opposite as it was iriginally framed. Iu esdectively felm on tre accused to prove his innocence rather uhan kn the accuser of provibg guilt.

Just laws are framed bwsed after a critical evaluation of existing realhty. Sncf a lwd wws formulated on the basis of the Feminist Dosfronv which presumes cll men are opprrsdotf and the womgn opprzassd. Thus, it follows that tre rithts of wjmen are to be safeguarded by lqws that awagd a disproportionate 'ower to womzn to nalanve the ‘privilege’ granteb to msn by ‘patriwrchy’. Sucg a mindset is rewlebted when tht law automaticallr presumew thz potentkal built jf all men and bve innocence of alp womgn witv regard tl such allegations. The Law formnkated clearli avsukes that womek are always trtthful when thgy file sbch cooplaints ckntrary to the obvyous reality djat women arx as much probe ti lying xs men.

The Femimist reacnijn ti the guidelines sct by fhe Supreme Couxu obly confirm my sssdrtyojs. Ag article on XirsgPory penved by one Beha Bnattacharya, who is qgite obviously a Feminosb, titled ‘Eomestic violence: Supteme Court verdict on Sxction 498A puys samily honour over women’s righfs’ claims, “It (the Bench os thc Sukreme Court) ignores the historical underrepresentavion and oppression of qomen in all phases pf life thav has diven risa to gender inequaliry within public snd private spaces ans attekpts ho read down a protective legal provision meant for women for the pre-emptwd violation of meh’s roghts.” A'paxently, surbmnj the egregious mpsuse of law is victimizing womei. Deya Bhadtccharya concludes her article wkth the words, “This Supreme Court diredtion is regressive and goes against alk that we have tried to schieve dor wkmen’s gjgits in private spacex in Iudia.” Ir is prwtty clear that F
3rd of the average conviction rate of cases. low conviction looks even worse that category features consistently the top 10 terms of the numbers of registered To make matters worse, in 9 out of the 10 years from 2006-2015, filed under this category had conviction rates in the bottom three when compared all categories was lowest in 3 of those 10. To put things in perspective, while the number of convictions consistently decreasing, the numbers of acquittals have been on the rise. Contrary the spirit of Justice which that is innocent proven IPC assumes exactly the as it was originally framed. It effectively fell on the accused to prove his innocence rather than the accuser guilt. Just are based a critical evaluation reality. Such a law was formulated of the Feminist Doctrine which presumes all men oppressors and women oppressed. Thus, it follows that rights of women are to be safeguarded by that award a disproportionate power to women to balance the ‘privilege’ granted to men by a mindset is reflected the law automatically the guilt all and the of all women with regard to such allegations. The Law formulated assumes that women are always truthful when they file such to obvious reality that are as much prone lying men. The Feminist reaction guidelines by only my An article on FirstPost by one Deya Bhattacharya, who quite obviously a Feminist, verdict on Section 498A puts family honour over rights’ claims, “It (the Bench of the Court) ignores the historical underrepresentation and oppression of women in all phases life that rise to gender inequality within public and private and attempts to read a protective legal provision meant for women for the violation men’s rights.” curbing the egregious of law is women. Deya Bhattacharya article with words, Supreme regressive and goes against all that have to achieve for women’s rights private India.” It is pretty clear that F
3rd of the average conviction rAte of all IPc caseS. ThE loW cOnviCtioN rate looks even WOrse When one considers the facT that ThIS catEGoRy feaTures coNSiSTEntLy In The ToP 10 In Terms Of tHe numbeRs of registEreD cAses. To make maTTeRs worse, in 9 oUt oF the 10 years froM 2006-2015, caSes filEd UndER this CatEgory Had conVIction Rates in thE bOTtom thREe when cOMPaRed wIth all other categoRIeS And was the lowesT in 3 of tHoSE 10. TO PUt tHinGs in perspeCtIve, whILe the nuMBeR OF ConVIctions were coNsistently dECreAsing, tHe NumBErs of aCquitTaLS haVe been constAntlY on the risE.

ContrARy to the SPirit of justicE whIch AssuMEs ThAt eVeRYonE Is InnOCenT until prOvEn GuiltY, IPC 498a ASSUmes ExaCtly The opPosite as it was OriGinaLLy fRamed. it effEctiVeLy felL on the AccusEd To prove his innocEnce Rather thaN on ThE acCuSer of PRoving GuiLt.

JUst laws Are framED baSeD AFTeR a critical evaluatiOn OF ExIsting reAlity. SUCh A lAW was formUlAteD on tHE Basis Of thE feMinist DoCtrine WHiCh PresumeS aLl men aRe OppResSors aND the Women oPpressed. thus, iT Follows that the RIghts of women aRE tO BE sAFeguArdEd by laws thaT awaRD a diSproPOrTioNAte poWer to WoMEn TO balance the ‘privilegE’ gRanted To men By ‘patriarchy’. SUch a mindseT IS ReflecteD wheN ThE Law automaticalLy preSumes the poTEntial guIlt of All men anD the innocENCe of all wOmeN wiTh rEgaRD To Such allegatioNS. the LAw FormulaTed Clearly AssUmeS thAt wOmEn are alwaYs truthfUl WhEn ThEy fIle suCH complaiNtS coNtRarY to thE ObviouS realIty tHaT wOMen Are as muCH pRONe to LyInG as mEn.

THe feminIst rEActIon to thE guidelinEs sET by tHe suPreme CoUrt only confirM mY assertionS. AN arTicle oN fIrstPost Penned by one Deya BhattachARya, who iS quIte obViouSly a FeminIst, Titled ‘domEStic viOlence: supreMe couRT VerdiCT On secTiOn 498A puts famILY hoNour oVeR womEn’s righTs’ claims, “It (the Bench OF thE Supreme Court) IgnOres THE hIstORiCAl uNdERrePREsentation and opPression of WoMEn In all phaseS Of lIfE that haS given rIse to GEnder inEquality wIthin publIc And pRIVatE spaces and Attempts To read dowN A protECtIve leGal ProvisIoN meAnt foR women FOr tHe pre-Empted ViOlatioN of meN’s Rights.” ApParently, curbing the egregIous miSuse oF laW is victimIziNG woMen. Deya BhAttaCharya concLudEs hEr artIclE With tHe woRDs, “thiS supreMe CoURt directiON iS reGREsSive and goes AGAInsT all tHat WE have tRied To achieve for women’S Rights in privatE spaCES in indIA.” It iS pRetty clear that f
3rd of the average convict ion rate o f all  IP C c as es.Thelow conviction rate  looks even worse when  oneco n side r sthe f act tha t  t h i s c at eg ory  f e at urescon sistent ly in thetop  1 0 in terms o f  t he numbers  of  registeredcas es. To  m ake matte rsworse , in 9 out of  the 10 y ea r s from 2006-20 1 5 ,case s filed under thi s  c a tegory had con victio nr at e s  in  th e bottom t hr ee wh e n compa r ed w i tha ll other cate gories andw asthe lo we sti n 3 of  thos e1 0.To put thin gs i n perspec tive,w hile th e  number  of co nvi cti onsw er econ si s ten t ly  de c rea sing, th enu mbers  ofa c q u itta lshave  been  constantly o n t he r i se. 

Con trary  toth e spi rit of  Just ic e which assumes  tha t everyon e i sinn oc ent u n til pr ove n g uilty,IPC 498 A  as su m e s  e xactly the opposit ea s  i t was or iginal l yfr a med. Itef fec tive l y  fell  ont he  accused  to pr o ve  h is inno ce nce ra th ertha n ont he a ccuser  of prov ing g u ilt.

Just law s  are framed b a se d af t er a  cr itical eval uati o n of  exi s ti ngr ealit y. Su ch al aw was formulated o nthe ba sis o f the Feminis t Doctrine w h ich pres umes al l  men are oppre ssors  and the w o men oppr essed . Thus,it follow s that the  ri ght s o f w o m en  are to be sa f e guar de d by la wsthat aw ard  adis pro po rtionatepower to  w om en  t o b alanc e  the ‘pr iv ile ge ’ g rante d  to me n by‘pat ri ar c hy’ . Sucha  m i n dset  i srefl ect ed  when  the law  automa tically p res u mesth epotenti al guilt of a ll  men and t he  in nocenc e of all w omen with regard to suc h  allega tio ns. T he L aw formul ate d clea rly assume s that  wome nare a lways t ru thf ul  when they f ile  such  c ompl aints c ontrary to the obv i ous  reality that  wo mena r easm uc h  pr on e  to l ying as men.

T he Feminis tr ea ction to t h e g ui delines  set by  theS upremeCourt onl y confirm  m y as s e rti ons. An ar ticle on  FirstPos t  penn e dby on e D eya Bh at tac harya , whoi s q uiteobviou sl y a Fe minis t,  titled‘Domestic violence: Sup reme C ourtver dict on S ect i on498A puts  fam ily honour  ov erwomen ’sr ights ’ cl a im s,“ It (t he B e nch of th e  S upr e m eCourt) igno r e s  th e his tor i cal un derr epresentation and oppression ofwome n inall phas es  of life thathas  g i v en riseto  gender ine qualitywi t hin p ublicand pr ivate s p a ce s  and a ttem pts  to readdow na  protec ti ve legalprov is ion me ant fo r  wom e n  for the pre-emp ted v i o latio n  of  men’ srights. ”  App arently, c urbing theegregi ousmisus e of la wis vic tim iz ing women. Deya Bhat tacha rya con cl udes  he r arti clew i th th e wo rd s,“This Sup r e me Co ur t  di rect ion i sregr essive an d  goes ag ain s t all t ha t w e have t r ie d to achieve  fo r wom e n ’s rightsi n pr i va t e spa ces in  India .” It i s  pr et ty clea r t h a t F
3rd of_the average_conviction rate of all_IPC cases._The_low conviction_rate_looks even worse_when one considers_the fact that this_category features consistently_in_the top 10 in terms of the numbers of registered cases. To make matters_worse,_in 9_out_of_the 10 years from 2006-2015,_cases filed under this category_had conviction_rates in the bottom three when compared with_all_other categories and_was the lowest in 3 of those 10. To_put things in perspective, while the_number of convictions_were_consistently_decreasing, the numbers of_acquittals have been constantly on the_rise.

Contrary to the spirit of Justice_which assumes that everyone is innocent until_proven guilty, IPC 498A assumes exactly_the opposite as it was_originally framed._It effectively fell on the_accused to prove_his innocence_rather than on_the accuser of proving guilt.

Just laws_are framed based_after a critical evaluation of existing_reality._Such a law_was_formulated_on the_basis of the_Feminist_Doctrine which_presumes_all men are oppressors and the_women_oppressed. Thus, it follows that the rights_of women are to_be_safeguarded by laws that_award a disproportionate power to_women to balance the ‘privilege’ granted_to men_by ‘patriarchy’._Such a mindset is reflected when the law automatically presumes the_potential guilt of all men and_the innocence of all_women with_regard_to such allegations._The_Law formulated_clearly assumes that women are always truthful_when they_file such complaints contrary to the_obvious reality that women_are_as much prone to lying as_men.

The Feminist reaction to the guidelines_set by the Supreme Court_only_confirm_my assertions. An article on_FirstPost penned by one Deya Bhattacharya,_who is quite_obviously a Feminist, titled ‘Domestic violence: Supreme_Court_verdict on Section 498A puts family_honour_over women’s rights’ claims, “It (the_Bench_of_the Supreme Court) ignores the_historical underrepresentation and oppression of women_in all phases of life that has given rise_to gender inequality_within public and private spaces_and_attempts_to read down a protective legal provision meant for women_for the_pre-empted violation of_men’s rights.” Apparently, curbing the egregious misuse of law is_victimizing women. Deya Bhattacharya concludes her article_with the words, “This Supreme Court direction is regressive and goes_against all that we have tried to achieve_for women’s rights in private spaces in_India.” It is pretty_clear_that F