Widowed Jethani Living Separately Unlikely To Benefit From Alleged Dowry: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Case
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC against a woman's sister-in-law (jethani), holding that the latter being a widow and living separately from the in-laws family was unlikely to benefit from the alleged dowry or to harass the complainant (woman). [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 246]The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the...
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC against a woman's sister-in-law (jethani), holding that the latter being a widow and living separately from the in-laws family was unlikely to benefit from the alleged dowry or to harass the complainant (woman). [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 246]
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the sister-in-law (petitioner) had nothing to gain from the cash or articles of dowry that allegedly had to be given to the complainant's husband and parents-in-law.
The Court held that ordinarily, in matrimonial disputes, the harassment was subjected by the husband or parents-in-law.
“The petitioner, being sister-in-law of the complainant i.e. Jethani, has no concern whatsoever, with the domestic affairs of the complainant and her husband. She would not benefit from any demand of dowry, if any, made by the husband or in-laws with the complainant who is sister-in-law (Devrani) of the petitioner.”
For context, the Court was hearing a quashing petition against order of the court wherein cognizance was taken against the petitioner under Section 498A. As alleged by the petitioner, her brother-in-law had filed for divorce with the complainant.
As a counterblast, the complainant filed the case against the brother-in-law and his family members including the petitioner. The charge sheet was submitted by the police only against the brother-in-law of the petitioner. Despite the same, pursuant to an application being filed by the complainant under Section 319, CrPC, cognizance was taken against the petitioner too.
The petitioner argued that she was a widowed lady, who had no concern with the domestic affairs of the complainant and her husband-brother in law. Based on vague and omnibus allegation, without any specific act being attributed to the petitioner, she was implicated.
After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that the complainant and brother-in-law were government teachers who were posted at different places, and living separately at the time of marriage. At the same time, the petitioner was a widowed lady residing at her matrimonial house.
Further, the Court also took note of the fact that no specific or overt act was alleged against the petitioner to show how exactly she contributed in the abuse and harassment towards the complainant.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Preeti Gupta and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. in which it was held that,
“…in most of the complaints under Section 498A IPC, in the heat of the moment over trivial issues, the complainant with oblique motives duplicates all family members of the husband and even person who are in remote relation to the husband.”
In this background, while making the aforementioned observations, the Court held that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner.
Accordingly, the cognizance taken against her was quashed and set aside.
Title: Smt. Indra Devi v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 246