Open house: Even her sisters-in-law expected Neeta to comply

Neeta Sakaria?s story reads like a bizarre Bollywood C-grade potboiler. A small-town girl from Rajasthan, Neeta was married into a well-to-do jeweller?s family living in Mazgaon in Mumbai in May 1994. Two months into the marriage, any dreams she might had of happiness turned into a nightmare when she was asked to sleep with her 75-year-old father-in-law, Kaluram Sakaria.

The ensuing drama, which culminated early this month, once more brought Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code under the scanner. Because it is under it that a Mumbai metropolitan court convicted six members of the Sakaria family, hotting up the legal debate over the effectiveness and fairness of the section (which seeks to punish husbands and in-laws of women abused in marriage).

In the first week of December, metropolitan magistrate M.I.G.D. Shaikh of the 17th court Mazgaon convicted jeweller Hitendra Sakaria and his brothers Puranmal and Ramesh Kumar, for physical and mental harassment under Section 498 A, and for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The magistrate also convicted Puranmal?s wife Mohini, Ramesh Kumar?s wife Bela, and Sakaria?s sister Sadhana on the same charges.

The magistrate convicted the Sakaria family based on a complaint filed by Hitendra?s wife Neeta who alleged that the family tried to intimidate her and force her into having physical relations with the male members of the family. After conducting a trial, the magistrate concluded that there was evidence to prove Neeta?s allegations and sentenced the three brothers to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The three Sakaria women were sentenced to six months? rigorous imprisonment for abetting the crime.

In the trial it had emerged that shortly after her marriage, Neeta?s sister-in-law Mohini had told her that if she wanted to live in the Sakaria household, she would have to comply with the family tradition of swapping sexual partners. Mohini commanded Neeta to engage in physical relations with all the male members of the family ? which included Mohini?s husband, Puranmal, and brother-in-law Ramesh Kumar. Neeta says in her complaint that she was shocked to discover that the women in the house, led by Mohini and supported by Ramesh Kumar?s wife, Bela, and sister-in-law, Sadhana, united in pressuring her to fall in line with, what they said, was a family custom.

Family custom apparently decreed that when her brothers-law repeatedly entered her bedroom and attempted to have sex with her, she should comply. When she refused, she was beaten up, deprived of food and repeatedly ejected from the house. Neeta Sakaria suffered the torture till 1996, but refused to fall prey to the advances of her brothers-in-law. She also filed four non-cognisable complaints with the Byculla police station during the period, but did not mention this facet of her complaint. Her alleged torture came to an end in 1997 when her father, with four people who had mediated the marriage, came to fetch her. The Sakaria family thereupon asked Neeta and her father to sign a written document stating that she was willing to go to her parental home in Sumerpur, Rajasthan of her own accord.

In 1997, Hitendra Sakaria filed for divorce in the family court. Neeta Sakaria then returned to Mumbai and filed a private complaint with the help of her lawyer Kiran Jain. Throughout, the Sakaria family pleaded not guilty to the charges.

During the trial, the magistrate examined six witnesses, who included Uttamchand Jain, a relative of Hitendra Sakaria who mediated his marriage with Neeta. Jain confirmed the prosecution argument that Neeta had informed him about the cruelty and harassment she faced within four to five months of her marriage. He said in his testimony before the court that Neeta had also told him about the demands for illicit sexual relations.

During the cross-examination, Sakaria?s advocate S.M.Z. Nagamia demanded to know why none of Neeta?s non-cognisable complaints had mentioned those demands. Neeta told the court that she had remained silent on the allegations to protect the family name.

When the judgment finally went Neeta?s way, Sakaria?s lawyer S.M.Z. Nagamia said, ?We were shocked by the judgment. Neeta?s allegations seem like an afterthought. We have filed an appeal against the order in the sessions court. It has been admitted by Judge Abhay Thipsay for a hearing.? The Sakaria family, meanwhile, was released on a personal bond of Rs 10,000 each.

While many in legal circles have been demanding the scrapping of Section 498-A ? because it lends itself to misuse by women in cases of personal disputes and on the grounds that it is unfair to men ? organisations working for women?s causes have united in strongly opposing the demand.

One can be sure that 32-year-old Neeta ? who now lives with her nine-year-old son in Bhayander in the western suburbs of Mumbai ? is firmly with the opposition.