In recent times, the subject of matrimonial disputes has seen widespread coverage by various news outlets and minute dissection on social media. Particularly, social media platforms such as 'X' and Meta have seen long drawn discussions on the misuse and exploitation of matrimonial laws and procedures, seemingly primarily by women, allegedly in order to make financial gain. Like most social media discourse, these discussions often devolve into comments filled with hatred and a rising tide calling for action by the Government to prevent the alleged 'misuse' of matrimonial laws by women.
On the other hand, the divorce cases of celebrities have been widely telecast on news channels and picked up by YouTube channels and other social media influencers engaged in everyday gossip, and a legal proceeding, which is meant to be a private, anonymous affair, is turned into a theatre, once again drawing comments and conjecture by thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, on social media.
A simple search on Google will reveal that spousal privacy and its importance in the legal sphere has been reiterated multiple times by the Courts. On the surface level, when it comes to the subject of marriage, the law itself accords this relationship a special, protected status. Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, now captured in Section 128 of the Bharatiya Sakhsya Adhiniyam, 2023 specifically states that communications between spouses during the subsistence of a marriage is protected information, and a spouse cannot be compelled to disclose information against the other. Going further, the Madurai Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, in C.R.P. (MD) 2362 of 2024 even ruled that obtaining information pertaining to the privacy of one spouse by the other, without the former’s consent and knowledge cannot be accepted. The Court ruled "Privacy as a fundamental right includes spousal privacy also and evidence obtained by invading this right is inadmissible.". In essence, the law, both as legislated by Parliament and as interpreted by the Courts, provides a high level of sanctity to the information exchanged between spouses and even provides for privacy to each spouse from the other in certain cases, as is only expected of any civil society. The larger idea being that privacy is at the core of each individual’s autonomy, and the same level of privacy extends to a couple in a marriage.
Unsurprisingly, when it comes to the subject of matrimonial disputes, and particularly, the issue of divorce, the process by which a marriage comes to an end, the same level of privacy, and more specifically, anonymity, is provided by the law. Order XXXII-A Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 11 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 both provide that disputes of the matrimonial nature may be held in camera if the Court so desires. In fact, a simple case search on the eCourts website would reveal that all matrimonial cases are completely anonymised, and information which would otherwise be available in other cases is not openly accessible when it pertains to divorce, maintenance or guardianship matters. All of these safeguards are in place to ensure that the parties are provided the same amount of privacy and anonymity when it comes to divorce as they enjoyed while in the marriage.
Considering the protected status given to matrimonial disputes, specifically when it comes to privacy and anonymity, the recent outburst on media and social media platforms regarding what should and should not be permitted in matrimonial proceedings is entirely antithetical to the spirit of the law on the same subject. The weaponisation of the facts of any particular matrimonial proceedings, which ought not to be in the public domain to begin with, can only cause immense harm to the entire justice delivery system and would directly impact millions of cases pending before various Courts in the country.
Recent events have led to widespread calls to amend or completely restructure existing laws surrounding divorce and maintenance to provide safeguards for men who are victims of malicious prosecution. These voices have been given wind by the occasional judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court calling for the prevention of misuse of laws intended to protect women. While such proclamations may be based on the facts of the specific case being dealt with by the Courts, they are often used as examples while calling for the complete abolition of laws enacted for the protection of women, perpetuating the notion that women in any matrimonial dispute must automatically be the "wrong" party, and all statements made by women in a divorce or maintenance proceeding must be false.
Most concerning is the trivialisation of crimes against women, especially violence faced by women in a matrimonial relationship, which have not become any less of an issue over the past 40 years or so since the enactment of the Family Courts Act, 1984. A glance of social media coverage of matrimonial issues would lead those uninitiated in family law to believe that the tables have turned and women have suddenly become no less than tyrants. These posts and articles fail to take into account, or intentionally gloss over the fact that a major portion of women continue to face intimate partner violence, and a huge chunk of these cases go unreported due to fear of social stigma or family pressure. An article titled "Crime against women in India: district-level risk estimation using the small area estimation approach"* which deals with the changes in rates of crimes against women in India from 2020 to 2022 reveals that despite popular belief on social media, there has been an increase in such cases, including especially, matrimonial cruelty by the husband or his relatives.
While these social media posts and speculation can be dismissed as nothing more than mostly the opinions of faceless voices, in an adversarial system where the perceived character of a person is primarily the basis on which a decree of divorce is either granted or denied, this can have far reaching consequences on the justice delivery system as a whole. Speculation as to the character of a party to a matrimonial proceeding can be cited as evidence by their opponent spouse to bolster their case, whether or not such speculation warrants consideration - and this, is the real world risk of allowing social media speculation to go unchecked. In most matrimonial cases, the witnesses in the case are usually limited to the parties themselves. Be it divorce, maintenance or child custody, the testimonies of the two parties are given prime consideration, and in essence, this forms part of the larger idea that only those two parties truly know what happened behind closed doors. The sudden outpour of support to one side, by faceless voices on the internet who haven’t the slightest idea even as to the names of the parties, can seriously skew public perception, which would then naturally create a bias against the other party, even if they were at the receiving end of mistreatment. More importantly, the Judicial Officer dealing with the particular case also comes under public scrutiny, creating yet another hurdle for the real victim to make out their case.
Laws, and especially women protection laws are enacted in order to address the specific issue of crimes against women. And a call to tear down these laws or to do away with them cannot be paid heed to while there exists overwhelming evidence of the reason for its enactment continuing to grow on a daily basis. Social media outcry has led us to believe that the playing field has levelled and women no longer require special legislations for their protection due to an increasing number of women finding employment and economic stability. However, such a shallow view cannot be adopted to measure the standard of safety provided to women either in a professional or domestic setting.
A Court of law is established with the goal of ensuring that each party to a dispute is provided an opportunity to put forth their case and have their issues adjudicated on the basis of verifiable evidence by an impartial and unbiased authority. At a time where every person with a mobile phone is suddenly elevated to the role of judge, jury and executioner, we cannot let the court of public opinion supplant the Rule of Law.
Reference:
*B S Pooja, Vasudeva Guddattu & K Aruna Rao, ‘Crime Against Women in India: District Level Risk Estimation using the Small Area Estimation Approach’ (2024) 12 Frontiers in Public Health , < https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1362406 > accessed 10 February 2024
Comments