Selling Matrimonial House By Itself Cannot Amount To Dowry Harassment U/S 498A IPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that merely selling the matrimonial house cannot, by itself, be treated as an act of dowry harassment under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that: “In status report, it has come that matrimonial house of the complainant situate at Delhi was sold by the petitioners, but such act, if any, cannot be construed to be act...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that merely selling the matrimonial house cannot, by itself, be treated as an act of dowry harassment under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that: “In status report, it has come that matrimonial house of the complainant situate at Delhi was sold by the petitioners, but such act, if any, cannot be construed to be act of demanding dowry.”
Background:
The complainant, Anjali Rana, had alleged that her marriage with petitioner Rahul Dadhwal was solemnised on October 11, 2021, in Ghaziabad according to Hindu rites and customs. She stated that on February 27, 2022, her husband and in-laws left her at her parental home in Himachal Pradesh and assured her that she would later be taken back to her matrimonial home.
According to the complaint, no one from the husband's family later contacted her. When she and her father visited her matrimonial home in Delhi on April 4, 2022, the house was allegedly found locked, and she later learnt that the family had shifted elsewhere. She further alleged that her belongings remained in the possession of her in-laws. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered at Police Station Baijnath under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 IPC.
The High Court noted that both parties had clearly stated before the Family Court that they had amicably resolved their disputes and that nothing remained to be given or taken between them. The complainant had specifically stated that after the divorce decree, neither party would have any further claims against the other.
Further considering the complainant's contention that certain gold ornaments and belongings had not been returned, the court noted that no written settlement or document supporting the alleged agreement regarding return of ornaments was placed before the Court. The Court also recorded that the petitioners had offered ₹1 lakh in lieu of the ornaments, though the complainant did not accept the offer.
Thus, the court concluded that no allegation of dowry demand or coercion for property had been made by the complainant. According to the Court, the complainant's grievance was essentially that she had been left at her parental home and later found the matrimonial house locked. Such allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC.
Case Name: Rahul Dadhwal & others V/s State of H.P. & Others
Case No.: Cr.MMO No.1083 of 2025
Date of Decision: 05.05.2026