‘Wedding expenses not dowry demand’: Karnataka High Court quashes cruelty case against woman’s in-laws

6 months of marriage, FIR

The wife moved into her husband’s house after their wedding in April 2018, and lived with him for 19 days. On May 9, 2018, her husband left for America, where he worked, and she then resided with her mother-in-law and father-in-law.

The high court noted that it was during this period that the fulcrum of the allegations arose.

It was alleged before the court that barely six months after the marriage, the couple’s relationship floundered. This led the wife to file a complaint alleging cruelty by the husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law on a plea of demand of dowry. A subsequent police probe led to the filing of a chargesheet against the four accused.

The petitioners called into question before the court, the registration of the criminal case against them, besides seeking to quash the same.

‘Family drawn into proceedings without reason’

Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Keerthi Krishna Reddy argued that the relationship between the husband and the estranged wife had failed on its own accord. The petitioners were drawn into the web of proceedings without any rhyme or reason, the counsel stated.

However, additional public prosecutor B N Jagadeesha, appearing for the state, contended that there is a clear demand for dowry. He pointed out that the couple’s relationship fell apart barely after six months, and ample evidence was produced to demonstrate collective cruelty by all the petitioners.

The sister-in-law, who even used to visit the house, also played a role, along with her parents, in instigating the husband to inflict cruelty on the wife, as well as in connection with the demand for dowry, he argued.

What court said

• A close reading of the complaint indicates that commonplace domestic discord and minor skirmishes, not uncommon in a joint family setting, have been elevated to the pedestal of criminality.
• The permission to continue criminal proceedings against these petitioners, the mother-in-law, the father-in-law, and the sister-in-law would constitute an abuse of the process of law and subject them to the ordeal of a protracted trial without a sound basis, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
• The allegations are largely general and omnibus in nature, devoid of specific particulars as to time, date or overt acts.
• The complaint and the summary fail to satisfy the essential ingredients of the alleged offences against the petitioners.
• Section 498A (husband or his relative subjecting woman to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) contemplates cruelty of a nature likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury or harassment with a view to coerce unlawful demands for property.
• The sine qua non (essential condition) of the offence is not mere marital discord, but cruelty of a grave character tied to unlawful demands. Even in respect of dowry demands, the narration pertains predominantly to pre-marital discussions spanning between December 2017 and February 2018, ostensibly in the context of marriage expenses.
• The complaint does not delineate any concrete demand of dowry attributable to the petitioners, nor does it articulate conduct, meeting the statutory threshold of cruelty under the IPC.
• The high court noted that several talks to mediate between the parties, even at the instance of the court, have failed.