Taunting Wife Over 'Small Car', Insufficient Gold Prima Facie Amounts To Cruelty U/S 498A IPC: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that repeated taunts directed at a woman over allegedly bringing insufficient dowry, including remarks about a “small car” and lesser quantity of gold, prima facie amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while partly allowing revision petitions filed by the State and the father of a...
The Delhi High Court has held that repeated taunts directed at a woman over allegedly bringing insufficient dowry, including remarks about a “small car” and lesser quantity of gold, prima facie amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while partly allowing revision petitions filed by the State and the father of a deceased woman challenging a trial court order discharging her husband in a dowry death case.
The High Court restored charges against the husband under Section 498A IPC for cruelty but upheld his discharge under Section 304B IPC relating to dowry death.
The deceased's father alleged that after the initial two months of marriage, his daughter was repeatedly harassed by her husband and in-laws over dowry-related issues, including complaints that the family had promised a bigger car but only provided money sufficient for a smaller one, and that the quantity of gold given was inadequate.
The trial court had discharged the husband from offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC, observing that even if the allegations were accepted, remarks regarding “less gold” and a “small car” amounted to mere taunts and did not satisfy the threshold of cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
Disagreeing with this reasoning, the High Court held that the allegations against the husband were not of stray or isolated remarks, but of repeated taunts made to the deceased in relation to alleged dowry expectations. Thus, the allegations could not be brushed aside at the stage of framing of charge.
“The aforesaid allegations levelled by the complainant are specific in nature and have been directly attributed to the respondent-husband. The alleged remarks, that the complainant had promised a bigger car but had given money sufficient only for a smaller car, and that the gold articles given were less than what had been promised, prima facie indicate harassment of the deceased in connection with alleged dowry demands,” it said.
The Court however upheld the discharge under Section 304B IPC on the ground that there was no specific allegation in the statement as to any particular incident of dowry-related harassment having taken place immediately prior to the death of the deceased or within close proximity thereto.
“while considering an offence under Section 304B of the IPC, the Court is required to examine whether the material on record discloses a proximate nexus between the alleged dowry-related harassment and the death of the deceased. In the present case, though there are allegations regarding dowry-related taunts by the respondent-husband, there is no specific material on record indicating when the deceased was last subjected to such harassment prior to her death,” it said.
As such, the Court directed the trial court to frame charge against him under Section 498A IPC and proceed further in accordance with law.
Appearance: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State along with SI Akash; Mr. Manish Rohilla, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Mr. Mahesh Arasu, Mr. Abhishek Singh and Mr. Aman Singh, Advocates
Case title: State v. MK
Case no.: CRL.REV.P. 649/2024