The Delhi High Court held that repeated taunts over inadequate dowry, including remarks about a “small car” and insufficient gold, may constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma partly restored charges against a husband in a dowry death case.
The Delhi High Court has held that repeatedly taunting a woman over the alleged inadequacy of dowry articles, including comments about a “small car” and insufficient gold, can amount to cruelty under matrimonial law and justify prosecution under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while partly setting aside a trial court order that had discharged a husband from offences under Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives) and 304B (dowry death) IPC.
ALSO READ: Spouse Alleging Mental Cruelty Not Required to Explain Other’s Conduct: Bombay High Court
The High Court held that although the material on record was insufficient to proceed against the husband for dowry death, there was enough evidence to frame charges against him for cruelty arising out of alleged dowry-related harassment.
The Court observed,
“The alleged remarks, that the complainant had promised a bigger car but had given money sufficient only for a smaller car, and that the gold articles given were less than what had been promised, prima facie indicate harassment of the deceased in connection with alleged dowry demands,”
The case concerns the death of a woman in 2022 within a year of her marriage. According to the prosecution, the woman died after falling from the roof of her matrimonial home in North-East Delhi under circumstances that led her family to allege dowry harassment by her husband and in-laws.
Following the incident, the deceased woman’s father informed the police that his daughter had been subjected to repeated harassment over dowry demands after marriage. Statements recorded from family members also supported the allegations and described a pattern of taunts and humiliation directed at the woman.
ALSO READ: Madhya Pradesh High Court: Divorce Over Wife’s Indecent Chats, Cites Mental Cruelty
According to the prosecution, the husband allegedly made remarks such as:
“Tumhare baap ne to badi gaadi dene ki baat ki thi lekin chhoti gaadi ke paise diye, jo sona dene ka vaada kiya tha, woh bhi kam diya. (Your father spoke of giving a large car, but provided the money for a small one and even the gold he had promised to give was given in a lesser quantity.)”
Relying on these allegations and witness statements, the High Court held that the accusations disclosed a prima facie case of harassment linked to dowry demands and could not be dismissed without a full trial.
The Court said,
“The allegations levelled against the respondent-husband disclose harassment connected with alleged dowry demands and, therefore, cannot be brushed aside at the stage of framing of charge,”
The Court also disagreed with the trial court’s earlier conclusion that the alleged remarks were trivial or casual in nature. Justice Sharma observed that repeated taunts concerning dowry demands could not be minimised at the preliminary stage of proceedings.
“The truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations is a matter of trial. In the facts of the present case, repeated taunts relating to dowry demands, if taken at face value, cannot be treated as casual remarks at this stage.”
The trial court had previously discharged the husband in part after taking into account his personal circumstances. It had observed that he was already a widower with two young children and had remarried primarily to provide care and stability for them. On that basis, the trial court had reasoned that the husband would have little motive to harass his second wife for dowry.
The High Court, however, found this reasoning legally unsustainable. It clarified that the existence of personal or family circumstances justifying remarriage does not automatically negate allegations of dowry harassment or cruelty.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Rules Public Humiliation of Husband by Wife as Mental Cruelty
At the same time, the Court declined to interfere with the husband’s discharge under Section 304B IPC relating to dowry death. The Bench noted that to attract the offence of dowry death, the prosecution must show that the woman was subjected to dowry-related harassment “soon before” her death.
In the present case, while allegations of earlier harassment and taunts existed, the Court found no clear evidence demonstrating that such harassment had occurred immediately or shortly before the woman’s death.
Consequently, the High Court directed the trial court to frame charges against the husband only under Section 498A IPC and proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar appeared for the State.
The husband was represented by advocates Manish Rohilla, Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Mahesh Arasu, Abhishek Singh and Aman Singh.
Advocates Anand Shankar and Amit Kumar appeared for the deceased woman’s father.
Case Title: State (GNCTD) Vs Manoj Kumar CRL.REV.P. 699/2024 AND RAJESH KUMAR
Vs THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES