Today, 11th April, The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled that denying food to a married woman due to unmet dowry demands amounts to physical and mental cruelty, punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. The court also noted that forcing a woman to live in her parental home due to dowry non-payment constitutes mental harassment.
Madhya Pradesh: The recent decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that refusing to provide food to a married woman due to unfulfilled dowry demands considered as both physical and mental cruelty.
According to Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, it also considered mental harassment to force a married woman to live in her parental home because the dowry demands not met. This behavior punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with cruelty to wives.
Read Also:“Separating a Child From Father Amounts To Mental Cruelty”: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The court made these observations in a ruling on March 4, where it rejected a plea filed by a husband and his family members seeking to dismiss a First Information Report (FIR) filed by the wife. The FIR accused them of offenses under Sections 498A, 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC, along with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
In the FIR, the wife alleged that after her marriage in April 2018, her father provided sufficient dowry. However, her husband and in-laws withheld food from her, causing her to go hungry and thirsty. The FIR also mentioned that she experienced mental harassment because an air-conditioned car not provided as part of the dowry. Additionally, she claimed that for the past year, and staying at her parental home as her husband and in-laws failed to bring her back to their matrimonial home.
The husband and his family approached the High Court to challenge the FIR, arguing that the wife made vague and baseless allegations against them. They claimed that the FIR a retaliatory action in response to the allegations and complaints made by the husband against his wife.
Read Also:Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules Wife Involved in Adultery Can Be Denied Maintenance
After considering the facts of the case and the allegations made in the FIR, the Court concluded that withholding food from a married woman due to unmet dowry demands undoubtedly constitutes both physical and mental harassment. The Court also emphasized that the FIR cannot be dismissed on the grounds of being a retaliatory action, simply because it filed after the husband filed for divorce.
The Court remarked,
“Considering the FIR filed after the divorce petition, it suggests respondent No.2 may have aimed to salvage her marriage by staying silent. Only when reconciliation seemed unlikely did she file the FIR for the wrongs done to her. This isn’t a retaliatory response to the divorce petition.“
The Court determined that the relationship between the husband, wife, and in-laws strained, with the husband even accusing the wife of adultery.
The Court observed,
“If the accusation of adultery is proven false, it alone constitutes cruelty. Given these circumstances, this Court finds no grounds for interference. The application is dismissed.”
Petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Nishant Agrawal, appeared in court.
Government Advocate KS Baghel represented the State.
No legal representation present for the wife.
Read Order: [Nitish Umariya Ors vs. State Anr.]