In the Atul Subhash suicide case, a suicide note exceeding 20 pages by Bengaluru techie Atul Subhash made serious allegations against his wife, his family, and even the family court system for contributing to his tragic decision to end his life.
The suicide note left by Atul Subhash, a 34-year-old software engineer from Uttar Pradesh who died in Bengaluru, has highlighted serious concerns about the family court system. In his over 20-page note and accompanying video, Subhash detailed his history with his wife, the ongoing court case, and the impact of these circumstances on his family and mental health.
Questions Raised by Atul Subhash and the Legal Context
Abetment of Suicide
Atul Subhash’s note contained serious allegations against his wife, her family, and the court system, suggesting that these factors contributed to his decision to end his life. A review of the legal provisions surrounding abetment of suicide raises questions about whether his case fits the strict legal criteria.
Various rulings by the Supreme Court and High Courts in cases of abetment of suicide particularly where women have died by suicide due to cruelty from in-laws have emphasized that the “ingredients” of abetment must be carefully considered. Although a dying declaration or suicide note is regarded as significant evidence, courts have determined that such documents alone are insufficient for a conviction for abetment of suicide.
In a 2020 ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed charges against media figure Arnab Goswami, stating, “To constitute the offence of abetment, there must exist a direct or indirect incitement to commit a crime, an active role of the accused in instigating or facilitating the crime, and a proximate relationship in time.”
The Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS) retains similar language as the Indian Penal Code in defining abetment of suicide. According to Section 108 of the BNS, if any person dies by suicide, anyone who abets that suicide may face imprisonment for up to ten years and may also incur a fine.
Section 45 of the BNS outlines a detailed definition of “abet.” A person may be considered to have abetted an act if they instigate someone to commit that act, engage in a conspiracy with others to carry out the act, or intentionally assist in the act through illegal actions or omissions. In his note, Subhash expressed significant frustration regarding his wife’s actions and cited two specific incidents in March and April of this year where his wife and mother-in-law allegedly taunted him about dying by suicide. This raises the question of whether these instances could be considered a “proximate or direct” cause of his decision to take his life.
Law and Alimony
Section 125 of the CrPC and related rules aim to ensure that women and children are not left destitute following a marriage breakdown. In a 2020 ruling in the Rajnesh vs. Neha case, the Supreme Court established guidelines for uniformity and consistency in the awarding of maintenance and alimony.
The court indicated that while a rigid formula could not be applied, various factors must be considered, including the income of both spouses, the duration of the marriage, the needs of any children, and the status and position of the parties involved. Reasonable expenses of the husband and any dependents, as well as liabilities, must also be factored into the alimony amount.
Under the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 24 allows a “deserving husband” to claim maintenance from his wife if he can demonstrate that his income is insufficient for his living expenses during divorce proceedings. Section 25 permits permanent or one-time alimony for the husband at the time of final divorce.
Additionally, provisions in the CrPC, the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act allow for changes to maintenance or compensation amounts based on any changes in either party’s circumstances. This can include financial changes such as job loss or if one party’s income significantly increases, as well as changes like remarriage. Despite regulations that call for timely processing of interim maintenance applications, many cases remain pending for several years.
The Rajnesh verdict also highlighted that delays in granting maintenance can stem from factors such as heavy caseloads in family courts, repeated adjournments, and lengthy processes for completing pleadings at the interim stage. Other court rulings have indicated that alimony and maintenance amounts can be adjusted based on changes in the circumstances of either party.
Parental Alienation and Child Custody
An important aspect highlighted by this case is the issue of access to the child and child maintenance. In India, custody law prioritizes the “best interest” of the child when determining custody between parents. Courts take into consideration various factors, including the parent’s ability to care for the child, the child’s mental and physical needs, and other relevant circumstances.
In multiple rulings, the Supreme Court has established that when awarding maintenance, the child’s expenses must also be considered.
This includes living expenses such as food, clothing, housing, medical care, and education. Additionally, costs for extracurricular activities or vocational training that complement basic education should be included when determining child support. However, these amounts should be reasonable and not overly extravagant.
In November of last year, the Supreme Court clarified that while education expenses are generally the father’s responsibility, if the mother is working and earning adequately, these expenses may be shared proportionately between the parents. Parental alienation, defined as a negative perception of the “non-custodial” parent instilled in the child’s mind due to the actions or words of the custodial parent, has been recognized by the Supreme Court. This concept, referred to as “parental alienation syndrome,” has been highlighted in several verdicts, prompting courts to ensure that the non-custodial parent receives regular access to the child.
However, lawyers have noted that the implementation of access orders is often inadequate. Senior advocate Geeta Luthra mentioned to India Today TV, “In many cases, the parent who has custody simply refuses to bring the child for the meeting. There are also instances where fathers file applications but do not follow through with visits. It is crucial to ensure that access becomes a reality for caring fathers.” There can be specific exceptions regarding access in cases of proven issues such as abuse, violence, or alcoholism. However, apart from these situations, access must be allowed, and sensitivity toward these matters is essential, according to Luthra.
Legal Perspectives
In an interview with India Today TV, advocate Malavika Rajkotia—a leading lawyer in family disputes—referred to the “systemic failure” highlighted by the Bengaluru techie suicide case.
“While I cannot comment on the specifics, I believe she cannot be charged with aiding or abetting because there is a lack of proximity. We need to address the deeper systemic issues, as these cases often become emotional and brutal.” Rajkotia emphasized the overwhelming burden matrimonial disputes place on a system that lacks sufficient judges to manage the caseload, noting that divorce cases reveal the “brutal emotional side” of those involved.
“What needs to be tackled is the animosity between parties and the systemic malaise affecting the courts. Family courts are extremely burdened, hearing up to 120 cases in a single day,” she added.
Advocate Luthra echoed the concerns about the harsh emotional and adversarial nature of divorce and family litigation, stating, “It’s a very complicated issue. If someone misuses the system, especially laws favoring women, to claim abetment of suicide, it could open a Pandora’s box. Many husbands and wives are struggling with thoughts of suicide.
” While there may not be a legal nexus to the death, Luthra stressed the importance of taking access to the child seriously. “Imposing abetment of suicide as an offense in such situations could set a dangerous precedent. Many people feel increasingly frustrated due to a lack of access to their children,” she explained. Both advocates agree on the necessity of systemic overhaul in family courts, particularly regarding child access, parental alienation, and the lengthy delays in proceedings.
“We must not overlook mental health,” Rajkotia emphasized, noting that trained mediators and counselors may not be available in all courts. In places like Delhi, where such training exists, the system is often overwhelmed. Family courts in smaller districts face their own unique challenges. Advocate Tahini Sharma, who practices in family courts across Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, described the Atul Subhash case as a “reality check” for the current system. “Similar issues arise in many cases I handle. In various district courts, judges and court staff may be unaware of the challenges faced by fathers. I have had to file applications in some instances where this has been particularly pronounced.”
Kumar highlighted that lawyers often introduce “adversarial aspects” to matrimonial disputes by encouraging clients to make additional allegations and submit multiple applications. He pointed out that there is no defined upper limit for alimony in the law, claiming that lawyers frequently seek to increase the alimony amount and take a percentage from it.
He also noted a lack of sensitivity toward men regarding payment obligations. “What happens if someone loses their job or wants to switch to a lower-paying job? In those cases, it’s often claimed that the decision was intentional. However, they fail to recognize that job loss can happen easily, even in fields like IT or technology,” Kumar added.
Also Read-
The conversation inside the Judge cabin.