The Court further observed that compelling a married woman to live in her parental home on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry would also amount to mental harassment.
The recent ruling from the Madhya Pradesh High Court has established that denying a married woman food because of unmet dowry demands constitutes both physical and mental cruelty. Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia’s bench also emphasized that compelling a married woman to reside at her parental home due to unmet dowry demands amounts to mental harassment, falling within the purview of Section 498A (cruelty to wife) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
These observations were articulated in an order dated March 4, where the Court dismissed a plea filed by a husband and his family seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the wife. The FIR accused them of offenses under Sections 498A (cruelty), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC, along with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
According to the FIR, filed by the wife, subsequent to her marriage to the husband in April 2018, her father provided a substantial dowry. However, the husband and in-laws withheld food from her, leading her to endure hunger and thirst. The FIR also alleged mental harassment because an air-conditioned car was not included in the dowry. Furthermore, it stated that she had been residing at her parental home for the past year as the husband and his family purportedly failed to facilitate her return to the matrimonial home.
The husband and his family approached the High Court to contest the FIR, contending that the wife’s allegations were vague and that the FIR was a retaliatory measure against complaints lodged by the husband. However, following a thorough examination of the case and the allegations outlined in the FIR, the Court concluded that denying food to a married woman due to unmet dowry demands unquestionably constitutes both physical and mental harassment. Additionally, the Court clarified that the FIR cannot be dismissed merely because it was filed subsequent to the husband initiating divorce proceedings, as it cannot be construed as a retaliatory act.
“If the FIR lodged after filing of divorce petition is considered, then it can also be said that the respondent No.2 might be interested in saving her matrimonial life, therefore, she kept quiet and only when she realized that now her husband has gone to the extent where the possibility of reconciliation is bleak, then if she lodges the FIR for the misdeeds done to her than it cannot be said that it is by way of counter blast to the divorce petition,” the Court remarked.
The Court found that there was tension in the relationship between the husband, his in-laws, and the wife, with the husband going as far as accusing the wife of adultery.
“If the allegation of adultery is found to be incorrect, then that allegation, by itself, would amount to cruelty. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference. The application fails and is hereby dismissed,” the Court observed.
