Delhi High Court: In an application filed by the applicant (‘husband’) under Section 482 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail for offence punishable under Sections 498-A1/4062/343 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., stated that allowing such an argument to prevail that hospitalization was a prerequisite for invoking Section 498-A IPC, would erode the very purpose of the provision. Section 498-A of IPC was enacted to address the plight of women who suffer various forms of cruelty, not just physical abuse that resulted in visible injuries. If this ideology was allowed to grow, it would close the doors of justice for countless women who endure abuse behind closed doors, leaving them trapped in a distressing and oppressive environment. Such a narrow interpretation would render Section 498-A of IPC ineffective, silencing many victims and perpetuating cycles of abuse.
Thus, the Court dismissed the present bail application.
Background
In the present case, the marriage between the complainant (‘wife’) and the husband was solemnized on 25-02-2022, as per Muslim customs, with the dower fixed at Rs. 20,000. After the wedding reception on 05-03-2022, the wife retired to her in-laws’ residence. At the time of the wife’s departure, her parents and relatives had given dowry items — including a Creta car, Bullet motorcycle, gold and silver jewellery, furniture, appliances, utensils, and a sum of Rs. 5,25,000 in cash, as per the demands made by her in-laws.
Additionally, the wife’s family had performed all pre-marital ceremonies, as per the instructions of the in-laws, incurring significant expenses. After the marriage, the wife had noticed a significant change in the behaviour of her in-laws, as they had allegedly started taunting her over various issues, speaking harshly, and verbally abusing her family.
The allegations against the husband were that, after marriage, he and his family members had persistently harassed the wife for demand of additional dowry, despite already having received substantial amount of money in cash and large amount of articles and ornaments including a Creta car, gold jewellery, and specifically Rs. 5,25,000 in cash. They had verbally and physically abused her, made repeated demands for a Fortuner car and Rs. 25,00,000, in cash. She was pushed down the stairs, which caused her injuries. Eventually, they had thrown her out of the matrimonial home, had retained her belongings, and had also refused to return the dowry articles and her belongings despite repeated requests.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that the allegations in the complaint were of a serious and distressing nature. The husband not only subjected the wife to severe harassment but also retained her jewellery and other personal belongings, thereby depriving her of her rightful property. The wife had also stated that the husband’s persistent threats of divorce and mental abuse caused her to consider ending her own life, highlighted the severity of the mental and emotional trauma inflicted upon her.
The Court stated that the husband’s contention that it was his right to get married second time as he did not get along well with the wife and he had rightfully sold the vehicle given in dowry since it was registered in his name, brings forth, the malaise of even today, women being considered as a tool of enrichment and demanding cash, cars etc. and having no remorse for it. The fact that the husband remarried without seeking consent from the wife showed a disregard for his personal law and the sanctity of marriage.
The Court stated that the husband’s contention that the present case was not a case where the wife was hospitalised due to cruelty or harassment committed upon her, was not only unmerited but also crossed the threshold of having a mentality that in a serious Section 498-A of IPC cases, the woman should have injuries and medical treatment record of a hospital. The Court stated that this contention implied that the woman must be physically beaten and battered to the extent of requiring hospitalisation and only then it would make out a case of cruelty under Section 498-A of IPC. Such a perspective failed to recognise the multifaceted nature of cruelty, which included mental, emotional, and financial abuse, all of which were equally detrimental and fell within the ambit of Section 498-A of IPC.
The Court stated that allowing such an argument to prevail that hospitalization was a prerequisite for invoking Section 498-A IPC, would erode the very purpose of the provision. Section 498-A of IPC was enacted to address the plight of women who suffer various forms of cruelty, not just physical abuse that resulted in visible injuries. If this ideology was allowed to grow, it would close the doors of justice for countless women who endure abuse behind closed doors, leaving them trapped in a distressing and oppressive environment. Such a narrow interpretation would render Section 498-A of IPC ineffective, silencing many victims and perpetuating cycles of abuse.
The Court stated that selling the car given in dowry, remarrying when his child was less than a year old without consent or informing the wife, misguiding the Trial Court and making statement that the husband was not remarried, not returning any of the dowry articles, not joining investigation, harassing the wife to the extent of forcing her to commit suicide, demanding a Fortuner car despite having received a Creta car, demanding Rs. 25 lakhs in cash, added to the seriousness of the offence.
Thus, considering the facts, coupled with the seriousness of the allegations, the Court found no grounds to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant, and accordingly, dismissed the bail application.
[X v. State, Bail Appln. 3790 of 2024, decided on 14-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant: Yogesh Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Raj Kumar, APP for the State with SI Pankaj Kumar, PS. Jyoti Nagar.
1. Corresponding Section 85 of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)
