The tragic case of Atul Subhash, a software engineer from Uttar Pradesh who died by suicide in Bengaluru, has cast a harsh light on the challenges and flaws in India's family court system. His detailed suicide note and accompanying video have raised serious allegations against his wife, her family, and the judiciary, accusing them of contributing to his deteriorating mental health and eventual death. This incident has prompted broader discussions about the legal framework around abetment of suicide, alimony, child custody, and the systemic issues plaguing family courts.
The legal definition of abetment of suicide, as outlined in Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS), requires evidence of direct or indirect incitement, active facilitation, or a proximate relationship in time between the actions of the accused and the suicide. The judiciary has consistently held that a suicide note, while critical evidence, is not always sufficient to prove abetment. This principle was notably applied in the 2020 Supreme Court ruling involving Arnab Goswami, where the court emphasized the need for clear causative links between the accused's actions and the suicide.
Subhash's allegations include instances where he was reportedly taunted by his wife and mother-in-law, potentially contributing to his mental anguish. However, legal experts argue that establishing a direct and proximate causal link to substantiate abetment charges is challenging and could set a precarious precedent.
The case has also spotlighted the contentious issue of alimony and maintenance. While provisions under Section 125 of the CrPC and related laws aim to prevent destitution of women and children in failed marriages, they often lead to protracted disputes. The Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh vs. Neha sought to introduce consistency in maintenance awards by considering factors such as the income and status of both parties, the duration of the marriage, and the needs of dependents. Despite these guidelines, delays in resolving interim maintenance cases remain a significant problem, exacerbating financial and emotional strain for litigants.
Child custody battles add another layer of complexity. Indian law prioritizes the "best interest" of the child, assessing factors such as the parent’s ability to provide for the child and the child’s overall welfare. However, the issue of parental alienation—where one parent influences the child against the other—has increasingly emerged as a contentious topic. The judiciary has recognized this syndrome and emphasized the need for equitable access to the child, but enforcement of visitation orders often remains inconsistent.
The systemic challenges in family courts, particularly the overwhelming volume of cases and insufficient judicial resources compound these issues. Advocates point to the adversarial nature of family disputes and the lack of adequate mental health support as significant contributors to the distress faced by litigants. In smaller districts, these problems are magnified by a lack of trained mediators and procedural delays.
The emotional and financial toll of prolonged legal battles in family courts has drawn criticism from various stakeholders. Advocacy groups like the Save Indian Family Foundation have highlighted the biases and insensitivity often faced by men in these disputes. They argue that alimony demands sometimes lack reasonable limits and fail to account for changes in financial circumstances, such as job losses. Lawyers, too, face scrutiny for allegedly exacerbating adversarial aspects of these cases.
The tragic outcome of Subhash’s case underscores the urgent need for systemic reform. Solutions proposed by legal experts include increasing the number of family court judges, improving access to trained counselors and mediators, and implementing stricter timelines for resolving maintenance and custody disputes. Additionally, fostering a more empathetic and equitable approach in family court proceedings could help address the underlying emotional and psychological challenges faced by litigants.
