S.498A IPC Not Limited To Dowry Harassment: Madras HC Upholds Conviction Of Husband, Kin Who Forcefully Gave Abortion Pills To Wife

“Nowhere in Section 498 (A) of IPC, it is stated that it is the offence only if it involves dowry harassment. A married woman may be subjected to cruelties by her husband and other relatives for very many reasons. Section 498(A) only specifies cruelty meted out to the wife by the Husband,” the court observed.

Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup noted that in the present case, the husband and his mother had forcibly administered some medicine to the wife to abort the child in her womb. The court also noted that the husband and the mother-in-law did not allow the wife to enter the matrimonial house when she came with the child. Thus, the court noted that the facts attracted the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.

The court was hearing the criminal revision petition filed by the husband and his mother against their conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.

The wife had alleged that her mother-in-law, who was her husband's stepmother, used to instigate him to drive the wife out of the house. Further, when the wife became pregnant, both the husband and the mother-in-law forcefully administered some pills into her mouth to abort her pregnancy, which she vomited. She also submitted that the husband and the mother-in-law had tried to drive her out of the house, and when she refused, had wielded a machete and threatened to do away with her life. The wife was also not permitted inside the house when she came with the child after delivery.

The wife had lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Staton and a case was registered for offences under Section 498A and 506(ii) of the IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, a final report was filed for offences under Sections 498A and 506(ii) of the IPC. The trial court acquitted them of charges under Section 506(2) of IPC but convicted them for charges under Section 489A of IPC and sentenced them to simple imprisonment for 1 year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. An appeal against the conviction and sentence was also dismissed. Hence, the criminal revision petition was filed.

The husband and the mother in law argued that there was no demand for dowry or consequent harassment and thus the offence under Section 498A was not attracted. It was also submnitted that except the statement of the wife and her parents, there was no evidence to show that the wife was subjected to cruelty. It was argued that a trivial matrimonial quarrel between the parties was being given a criminal colour and that the courts below had passed the order without any legally acceptable evidence.

The court however did not accept his contention. The court noted that even if there was no dowry harassment, the atrocities and cruelties meted out to the wife had been clearly spoked to by her in her evidence and the accused had not examined any witness to support their weak defence.

The court noted that the Judicial Magistrate had convicted the duo on proper appreciation of evidence and the Principal Sessions Judge had arrived at the same conclusion and confirmed the judgment of conviction. Thus, finding the trial court's order proper, the court confirmed the same and directed the Judicial Magistrate to issue warrant in continuation to the conviction. The court directed the Inspector of Police to execute the warrant and produce the accused before the Magistrate to sentence them to undergo the period of imprisonment.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. R. Sankara Subbu

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. V. Meganathan, Government Advocate (Crl.side)

Case Title: Ramasamy and Another v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 151

Case No: Criminal Revision Case No.504 of 2019