The Ramanthali Tragedy in Kannur ' Kerala : Not a suicide- But a disaster engineered by Law !edy :

 

The Ramanthali Tragedy, in Kannur, Kerala : Not a Suicide — But a Disaster Engineered by Law

Is a Rewriting of Women-Centric Laws the Need of the Hour?

=================================================================

By

Salil Kumar

Advocate, Kozhikode – 673001

Ph: 8075113965

Email: advocatesalil@gmail.com

Published in the blog  on :  26-12-2025

I. Ramanthali Was Not a Personal Tragedy — It Was a Systemic Failure

What occurred in that house at Ramanthali, Kannur, was not merely a suicide.

It was the brutal final outcome of a legal imbalance consciously

nurtured by our legal system over decades.

On a Christmas day, a father walked into death along with his minor

child, crushed not by fate, but by the crushing weight of a false

criminal accusation. With family court proceedings pending, the wife

allegedly invoked a false POCSO complaint against the husband. Social

stigma, irreversible reputational damage, and legal terror followed

instantly. Unable to survive the humiliation, he ended his life —

taking his child with him.

Was justice delivered?

To the complainant — perhaps.

To the courts — procedurally, yes.

But the larger question remains unanswered:

Is our legal system immune from blame when law itself becomes the weapon?

II. The Constitutional Soul: Articles 14 and 15

Article 14 — Equality Before Law

Article 14 of the Constitution unequivocally guarantees that all

persons — men and women alike — are equal before law and entitled to

equal protection of laws.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that equality is the basic

structure of the Constitution

(Supreme Court of India — E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555).

Article 15(3) — Protective Discrimination, Not Hostile Discrimination

Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex, but Article

15(3) empowers the State to make special provisions for women and

children.

However, the Supreme Court has clearly held that Article 15(3) cannot

be used to destroy Article 14.

In Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008) 3 SCC 1, the Supreme

Court warned that protective discrimination must not turn into

paternalistic or hostile discrimination against men.

Yet, what we witness today is precisely that —

Article 15(3) being misused as a licence to dismantle equality under Article 14.

III. Section 498A IPC → Sections 85 & 86 BNS: A History of Misuse

For decades, Section 498A IPC became synonymous with automatic

arrests, humiliation, and incarceration — even before trial.

Recognising rampant misuse, the Supreme Court intervened:

Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 281 —

The Court declared that Section 498A had become a tool for legal terrorism.

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 —

Mandatory guidelines were issued to curb mechanical arrests.

Despite these safeguards, the same provision survives today in a new

avatar under Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) —

the mindset unchanged.

IV. Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Due Process Turned Upside Down

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, though

well-intended, is procedurally one-sided.

Under this law:

Magistrates can issue ex parte interim orders

Without hearing the husband

Even restraining him from entering his own property

This directly violates the foundational principle of audi alteram partem.

The Supreme Court itself cautioned against mechanical orders in

Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, yet misuse continues unabated in

family courts.

V. Maintenance under BNSS Section 144 (CrPC 125): Welfare or Punishment?

Section 144 BNSS (old Section 125 CrPC) mandates that:

A husband must maintain his wife till her death or remarriage

Regardless of his own unemployment

Even if the wife is financially independent

Failure results in civil imprisonment.

This raises fundamental questions:

How does a civil liability become a criminal punishment?

Why is the wife never legally bound to maintain a destitute husband?

The Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi (1975) 2 SCC 386

described maintenance as a measure of social justice, but social

justice cannot operate in violation of constitutional equality.

VI. Divorce and Compensation: Why Only the Husband Pays?

When a marriage breaks down, both spouses lose their marital life.

Yet:

Compensation is imposed only on the husband

The wife is presumed to be the sole sufferer

This contradicts Article 14.

The Kerala High Court has repeatedly observed that maintenance and

compensation must be decided on actual loss and earning capacity, not

gender alone

(Kerala High Court — Saji v. Shajna, 2020 (3) KLT 451).

VII. Promise to Marry & Sexual Relations — Criminal Law Bias

If a man engages in consensual sex after a promise of marriage and

later withdraws, it is often prosecuted as rape under Section 64 BNS

(old Section 376 IPC).

The Supreme Court has recently cautioned against this over-criminalisation:

Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608

Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of UP (2021) 3 SCC 454

But the reverse scenario remains legally invisible:

A woman exploiting a man emotionally and financially on false promise

of marriage faces no criminal liability.

Is this not gender discrimination?

VIII. Presumptions in Evidence Law — Justice or Prejudice?

Section 113A Evidence Act / Section 118 BSA

If a woman dies within 7 years of marriage, courts are permitted to

presume abetment by husband.

This directly conflicts with the cardinal principle:

“Every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.”

The Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra

(1984) 4 SCC 116 warned against convictions based on presumptions

rather than proof.

IX. POCSO Act — From Child Protection to Family Court Weapon

POCSO was enacted to protect children.

Today, it is increasingly used as a strategic weapon in matrimonial disputes.

False complaints:

No preliminary inquiry

Immediate arrest

Social death before legal trial

The Supreme Court itself acknowledged misuse in

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) principles.

Ramanthali is a chilling example of this collapse of proportionality.

X. Supreme Court Warnings — Voices Ignored

The Supreme Court has consistently warned:

False sexual complaints are increasing

Arrest must be an exception

Law must not become an instrument of vengeance

Yet implementation remains absent.

XI. The Way Forward

Immediate reforms are unavoidable:

Mandatory preliminary inquiry before registering serious matrimonial offences

Strict punishment for proven false complaints

Gender-neutral maintenance law

Child welfare to prevail over parental vengeance

Removal of gender-biased presumptions from criminal law

XII. Ramanthali’s Cry

Women need protection — without criminalising men by default.

Special protection must never become pre-trial punishment.

Article 14 must not remain decorative text in law books — it must live

inside courtrooms.

Ramanthali reminds us:

“When law does not allow a human being to live with dignity,

it ceases to be justice — and becomes injustice.”