In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a dowry harassment case, stating that the woman complainant
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!“clearly wanted to wreak vengeance.”
The case had been filed by the woman against her in-laws several years after she had left her matrimonial home.
The apex court’s decision came in response to an appeal challenging an order from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had declined to quash the proceedings against the woman’s former brothers-in-law and mother-in-law.
The woman, who is a teacher by profession, tied the knot in 2007. However, her husband later secured a decree of divorce, dissolving their marriage. Before the divorce petition was filed by her husband, the woman lodged a written complaint with the police, making several allegations against her spouse and in-laws.
Following her complaint, the police registered an FIR against the accused under the Indian Penal Code section 498A, which pertains to a husband or a relative of a husband subjecting a woman to cruelty. The FIR also invoked sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
However, the Supreme Court observed that the allegations made by the woman were largely
“General and omnibus in nature.”
The court pointed out the lack of specific details regarding how and when her brothers-in-law and mother-in-law, who resided in different cities, allegedly harassed her for dowry. A significant point highlighted by the court was that the woman took no action after departing from her matrimonial home in February 2009. It was only in 2013, just before her husband-initiated divorce proceedings, that she filed a complaint alleging dowry harassment.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose, Sanjay Kumar, and SVN Bhatti remarked,
“She clearly wanted to wreak vengeance against her in-laws. The allegations are so far-fetched and improbable that no prudent person can conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against them.”
The bench further added that allowing the criminal process to continue in such circumstances would lead to
“Clear and patent injustice.”
This case underscores the complexities surrounding dowry-related complaints and the importance of a judicious approach to ensure justice for all parties involved.
