The Supreme Court has ordered a man to pay Rs 3 lakh as compensation to his wife after their marriage ended in just three days due to his unfulfilled dowry demand of 100 gold sovereigns. The Court upheld his conviction under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, modifying his sentence to time already served. Citing 19 years of legal battle and the fact that both had moved on, the Court ruled that failure to pay the amount would lead to dismissal of his appeal and enforcement of the remaining sentence.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India ruled that a man who ended his marriage because his wife’s family did not meet his demand for gold must pay her Rs 3 lakh as compensation.
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and SV Bhatti upheld the conviction of M Venkateswaran under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case arose because Venkateswaran refused to participate in the wedding reception after the bride’s family declined to give him 100 sovereigns of gold as dowry.
“We are satisfied that the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC are fully satisfied and that the appellant subjected PW- 4 (wife) to harassment with a view to coercing her and her mother to meet the unlawful demand for the gold sovereigns and continued to harass her when PW-4 and her relatives failed to meet such demand. The ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act are clearly made out,”
-the Supreme Court said in its order dated January 24.
This case was a challenge against a 2022 judgment of the Madras High Court, which had confirmed the conviction of Venkateswaran under these laws.
ALSO READ: 498A | Supreme Court Slams Man Convicted for Dowry Torture: ‘What Kind of Man Are You?’
The allegations were made by his wife, Sridevi, who accused him of dowry harassment and mental cruelty. Their marriage lasted only three days. According to the complaint, Venkateswaran did not cooperate in the wedding reception because his dowry demand was not met.
The couple got married in 2006, but the relationship ended soon after. In 2007, a complaint was filed against Venkateswaran, his late father, and his brother under multiple charges:
- Section 498A IPC (cruelty to wife)
- Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust)
- Section 420 IPC (cheating)
- Section 506(2) IPC (criminal intimidation)
- Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (penalty for demanding dowry)
After a trial, the court acquitted his brother of all charges. Venkateswaran was acquitted of cheating and criminal intimidation but was convicted under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
He was sentenced to:
- 3 years in jail under Section 498A IPC
- 1 year in jail under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
In 2017, Venkateswaran appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge. The judge dropped his conviction under Section 406 IPC but upheld the rest of the convictions.
In 2022, the Madras High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the punishment under Section 498A IPC from 3 years to 2 years while keeping the 1-year sentence under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Still not satisfied, Venkateswaran approached the Supreme Court.
After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court found strong evidence from 15 witnesses supporting the allegations of dowry harassment. The Court confirmed his conviction but modified the sentence to time already served.
ALSO READ: Atul Subhash Suicide: PIL In Supreme Court To Curb Misuse Of Dowry Laws Against Men
Considering the long legal battle of 19 years, the fact that both parties had moved on in life, and that Venkateswaran was willing to do community service, the Supreme Court ordered him to pay Rs 3 lakh as compensation to Sridevi within four weeks.
“Admittedly, the incident pertains to the year 2006. The marriage was solemnized on 31.03.2006 and the couple lived together exactly for three days. As noticed from the High Court order, the de facto complainant is married and settled abroad. The case has been prolonged for a period of nearly 19 years. Both the appellant and PW-4 have moved on in life,”
-the Court noted.
The Supreme Court also warned that if he fails to deposit the compensation amount, his appeal will be dismissed, and the remaining sentence will be enforced.
CASE TITLE:
M Venkateswaran Versus The State.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Dowry
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
