'Distressed by malicious misuse of dowry laws': Supreme Court
The court pointed out that the term 'cruelty' used in Section 498A IPC is subject to 'rather cruel misuse' by the parties, and cannot be established simpliciter without specific instances, to say the least.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
SC: Cop pulling in-laws into cruelty case unfortunate
NEW DELHI: Expressing concern over misuse of Sec 498A of IPC that criminalises cruelty in matrimonial homes and dowry harassment, Supreme Court has quashed a case lodged 23 years ago by a Delhi Police woman sub-inspector against her husband, a colleague, and his entire family. Allowing the husband's appeal and quashing the case, a bench of justices B V Nagarathna and Satish C Sharma exercised SC's exclusive powers under Art 142 of the Con-stitution to quash the FIR lodged in 2002 at Malviya Nagar in Delhi and the charge sheet filed against the policeman, his parents and five sisters. "It is rather unfortunate that the complainant being an officer of the state has initiated criminal machinery in such a manner, where the aged parents-in-law, five sisters and one tailor have been arrayed as accused," it said. 'Growing tendency to misuse legal provisions' Writing the judgment, Justice Sharma said: "Even if the allegations and the case of the prosecution is taken at face value, apart from the bald allegations without any specifics of time, date or place, there is no incriminating material found by the prosecution or rather produced by the complainant to substantiate the ingredients of 'cruelty' under Section 498A IPC." The court said there were genuine cases of dowry harassment and cruelty in matrimonial homes but flagged the "growing tendency to misuse legal provisions" by women to rope in relatives of their husbands. The man and woman, both sub-inspectors in Delhi Police, had got married in Feb 1998 as per Buddhist rites. Alleging persistent torture for more dowry ever since the solemnisation of marriage, the woman lodged a police complaint in July 2002. A chargesheet was filed against the man and his relatives in July 2004. The magistrate had framed charges in June 2008.
Deccan Herald
14-05-2025
- Deccan Herald
'Distressed by malicious misuse of dowry laws': Supreme Court
The court pointed out that the term 'cruelty' used in Section 498A IPC is subject to 'rather cruel misuse' by the parties, and cannot be established simpliciter without specific instances, to say the least.
Time of India
23-04-2025
- Time of India
Growing trend of dowry victim indicting husband's kin: SC
There is growing trend of the dowry victim arraigning the relatives of the husband, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said and quashed a dowry harassment case against a woman's parents-in-law. For a bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra it appeared there were "omnibus and general allegations" against the woman's sister-in-law, husband and father-in-law. The top court, however, observed the allegation of any physical torture by the appellants was missing. "The allegation is only of taunt and statement that they are highly placed having political influence and connection with ministers as such they instigated accused 1 (husband) to accused 3 ( husband's parents) to pressurise the de-facto complainant to get additional dowry," it said. 5 5 Next Stay Playback speed 1x Normal Back 0.25x 0.5x 1x Normal 1.5x 2x 5 5 / Skip Ads by The order added, "Considering the growing trend of the dowry victim arraigning the relatives of the husband, this court has deprecated the practice involving the relatives of the husband for the offence under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act , 1961." Referring to its decisions, the bench said it has reiterated and deprecated the practice of involving the relatives of the husband in dowry related matters. Live Events In this case, the marriage between the complainant and her husband took place at Guntur, Andhra Pradesh in 2014. Five months into the marriage, the woman left her husband and started living with her parents. She went back to her matrimonial home but returned to her parents eventually. The husband sent a legal notice to her followed by a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in 2015. During the pendency of this proceeding, she lodged a complaint before the police in 2016. However, a compromise was arrived at and the husband withdrew the case. She subsequently left for the US without intimating the husband or his family members and the dispute continued. The husband moved a petition for dissolution of marriage on June 21, 2016 and as a counterblast she again lodged a police complaint against six accused persons, including the present appellants.
