The Kerala High Court has recently held that demanding dowry or any property or valuable security without the element of ‘cruelty’ would not be considered an offence under Section 498A IPC. The court stated that a person can be held liable under this section only when both demand and cruelty are combined. A simple debate between spouses, an occasional fight, or even a lot of fights are acceptable as long as they don’t amount to harassment because of a demand for illegally obtained property, significant security, or on account of failure to meet such an unlawful demand, will not attract the criminal liability that can be imposed for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Similarly, a demand for dowry or any property or valuable security without the element of ‘cruelty’ as explained under clause (a) or (b) will not attract the said offence, but the combined effect of both these will bring home the liability under Section 498A IPC,” observed Justice P. Somarajan.
In this case, the wife, who is the complainant, alleged that her husband had demanded more dowry and assaulted her at her residence. However, the nature of the assault was not explained or supported by any witnesses. The court noted that there was no evidence to show any kind of assault or injuries or any medical evidence in this regard.
The court opined that to constitute the offence of cruelty under Section 498A IPC, it must be satisfied that the husband or his relatives subjected the woman (the wife) to cruelty. Perusing Section 498A IPC, the court determined that the following ingredients ought to be satisfied to attract the offence: harassment on account of an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security by the husband or his relatives, such an act is towards the wife or her relatives, and the wife or her relatives were subjected to harassment (cruelty) with a view to coerce her or her relatives to meet such an unlawful demand or the harassment is on account of failure to meet such demand. The court noted that neither ‘harassment’ nor ‘coercion’ had been defined under the Code. Thus, it was noted that the terms should not be understood according to their definition in a dictionary, but rather in light of the wrongdoing that was intended to be put an end to by the said provision.
The court also relied on several precedents to observe that the consequences of cruelty that are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health, whether mental or physical of the woman, are required to be established in order to bring home the application of Section 498A IPC. The court also cautioned authorities while registering cases alleging an offence under Section 498A IPC, merely on the basis of trivial disputes between spouses.
The court overturned the petitioner’s conviction and punishment under Section 498A IPC and declared him innocent after concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support either the allegation of manhandling or any documentation of an earlier incident or assault on the victim. The revision petition was thus disposed of.
Written by N.Yogendra Mani of KL University Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh ( 5th semester) an intern under Legal Vidhiya
0 Comments