Denying Food To Married Woman Over Non-Fulfillment Of Dowry Demand Amounts To Physical & Mental Harassment: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently observed that not providing food to the married woman on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry would amount to physical and mental harassment.

A bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia added that compelling a married woman to live in her parental home on account of non fulfillment of demand of dowry would certainly amount to mental harassment, punishable under section 498-A of IPC.

The Court made these observations while dismissing a petition moved by a husband (applicant no. 1) and his family members seeking to quash an FIR lodged at the instance of the wife (respondent no. 2) for the offence under sections 498-A, 506, 34 of I.P.C. read with section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The case in brief

The impugned FIR had been lodged by respondent No.2 (wife) on the allegations that upon her marriage to applicant No.1 (husband) in April 2018, adequate dowry was provided by her father. However, the applicants (husband and in-laws) allegedly refused to provide her with food, keeping it hidden and leaving her hungry and thirsty. The FIR claimed that she had been subjected to mental harassment due to her failure to bring an air-conditioned car as part of her dowry.

Moreover, the FIR further alleged that for the past year, she had been residing in her parental home, as the applicants have allegedly not taken her back to their matrimonial residence. The FIR outlined specific allegations against the applicants, asserting that they habitually deny her access to food and mentally torment her due to the absence of the specified dowry item.

Challenging the impugned FIR, the husband and his relatives moved the High Court on the ground that omnibus, vague and general allegations have been levelled against them at the instance of respondent no. 2 and the impugned FIR is a counterblast to the allegations and complaints made by applicant No.1 against his wife.

They further argued that the impugned FIR is a result of careful consideration and hindsight as the impugned FIR had been lodged just a day after reconciliation took place between the husband and wife in a divorce suit filed by the husband wherein he had sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty and an extra-marital relationship of his wife. 

High Court's observations

Taking into account the facts of the case and the allegations levelled in the FIR, the Court noted that depriving a married woman of food due to unmet dowry demands undoubtedly constitutes both physical and mental harassment.

The Court added that the allegations made in the FIR are specific against each and every applicant and by no stretch of imagination it can be termed as vague, omnibus or general in nature.

The Court further observed that merely because the FIR has been lodged after the filing of the divorce petition, the same cannot be quashed on the ground that it is by way of counterblast.

"If the FIR lodged after filing of divorce petition is considered, then it can also be said that the respondent No.2 might be interested in saving her matrimonial life, therefore, she kept quiet and only when she realized that now her husband has gone to the extent where the possibility of reconciliation is bleak, then if she lodges the FIR for the misdeeds done to her than it cannot be said that it is by way of counter blast to the divorce petition," the Court remarked.

The Court also noted that the wife had earlier lodged an FIR against applicant No.1 on the allegations that he alleged an illicit relationship of respondent No.2 with another boy and, accordingly, he had taken away her mobile phone and also changed the Id password of Gmail and Facebook account and refused to return the same with a clear threatening that the mobile would be used as an evidence in the Court proceedings.

Thus, the Court stressed that the relationship of the applicant with respondent No.2 was not cordial and that applicant No.1 had gone to the extent of making allegations of adultery against respondent No.2. Adding that the if the allegation of adultery is found to be incorrect, then that allegation, by itself, would amount to cruelty, the Court refused to quash the impugned FIR.

Case title - Nitish Umariya and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another

Case citation: 

Click Here To Read/Download Order