what's an offence ?

"A mother-in-law kicking the daughter-in-law with her leg and telling her that her mother is a liar is not a punishable offence under Section 498A of IPC''. This is the perception of our Supreme Court -the Apex court of India.

First let's see what exactly this Section 498A of IPC (Indian Penal Code) says --
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.Explanation-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-
(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her meet such demand.]

The court has very quietly overlooked the words ``grave injury whether mental or physical health''.

In a country where there are over 250 women organisations fighting for women's rights and making all efforts to get the fairer sex a dignified place and equal opportunity in the society, the Supreme Court does not mind a woman kicking another woman.

The UPA government led by Sonia Gandhi is trying hard to get the Women Reservation Bill passed by the parliament to ensure 33 percent reservation to women everywhere so that women are no more a weaker sex.

The UPA government has also passed the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act). There are many organisations which are working to ensure its implementation in letter and spirit.

The efforts have started showing also - the country's President is a woman, the ruling party of the nation - Congress - which is also the oldest party of the country - is headed by a woman. The Parliament Speaker's chair is held by a woman who has tamed all the 500 odd members of the House. Even the biggest state Uttar Pradesh is headed by a woman and the biggest private bank too is managed by a woman.

There is no field where woman have not registered their presence.

In such a country the Supreme Court observes that a woman kicking a woman is not a big deal. The court obviously feels that kicking does not cause any grave injury to a woman's mental or physical health, and therefore it cannot be kept under the purview of section 498A of IPC.

Then what is a punishable offence? What causes grave mental or physical injury? Is only killing someone is an offence? Is murdering someone's honour not a crime? Where are the Human Rights activists? Where are the women activists? Why no one has so far spoken a word against this lopsided observation?

The observation explains that the honourable court has either little or no clue what violence against woman means. And also that mental health has no meaning for legal experts.

A person kicks when he/she resorts to violence. This small step which the Supreme Court perceives ``not a punishable offence'', if not more than often leads to divorce, suicides and bride burning.

To go deep into violence against women, it often starts with mental humiliation and insult, which - if not protested - turns into slaps, kicks and fists and eventually results into a bruised soul and bruised body.

As we advocate for all bad things - nip in the bud - such actions should be punished in the beginning. There is a need for some compassionate thinking here. Why encourage such actions which lead to such gruesome end and which have a very harsh end and which most of all cause severe damage to mental health of a woman. Instead, if the first slap or first kick or the first fist is countered legally, there would not be so many suicides, bride burnings and marriage break ups.

The Supreme Court also observed that ``if a mother in law gives second hand clothes to her daughter-in-law and gives perpetual sermons to her, that too is not a punishable offence.

Here is a question for all those who have made the law and who support this law and who practice this law -- Will they accept this behaviour if it takes place with their own daughters? Second hand clothes, kicks and slaps are far fetched moves, such people will react violently even if the mothers in law dare to speak in a raised voice with the daughters of these law makers and enforcers.

A woman is first a woman - then someone's daughter, and then sister, wife, mother and lastly the daughter in law.

I think we need to look into the law with a fresh perception. The law is needed to protect the integrity, dignity and respect of a woman irrespective of her relation to others in worldly perspective. Same goes for men.

The world would be a better place if we start looking at people as humans rather than judging them with the eyes of relations. A man or a woman is a human first and his or her dignity and respect should be maintained at every cost.