The Supreme Court on Friday made strong remarks against dowry-related harassment while hearing a case concerning the death of a woman by hanging in her matrimonial home [Suchit Keshari vs State of Chhattisgarh].

A Bench comprising of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, while declining to interfere in the matter, repeatedly criticised the conduct of the husband’s family. The Court underscored the need to send a deterrent message.

Justice Nagarathna questioned the social reality underlying such cases, observing,

“Why do boys marry girls and then insult them and their families? Let a message go out that they cannot continue insulting the bride and her family.”

The case stemmed from a 2010 incident in Chhattisgarh, where a woman died by hanging within three years of her marriage. The prosecution alleged sustained harassment and dowry demands, including cash payments and a car, made by the husband and his family.

The trial court concluded that the death occurred under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage, triggering the statutory presumption of dowry death. Evidence from the woman’s family indicated repeated financial demands and cruelty “soon before” her death.

While medical evidence confirmed death by asphyxia due to hanging, the courts held that the surrounding circumstances, such as persistent dowry demands, payments made shortly before the incident, and continued harassment, established a proximate link between cruelty and death.

Multiple members of the husband’s family were convicted under provisions including Sections 304B (dowry death), 306 (abetment of suicide), and 498A (cruelty and harassment).

The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the trial court decision.

The present petition before the Supreme Court was filed by a younger brother-in-law of the husband of the deceased, seeking relief from conviction under Section 498A (cruelty and harassment) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The counsel for the petitioner argued that his client was only charged under Section 498A IPC and that the offence was not made out.

The Court, however, was not persuaded.

“You should be happy that it is only 498A and only three years,” remarked Justice Nagarathna.

She also highlighted the pattern of financial coercion in matrimonial homes.

“Attempt is to squeeze the bride and her family,” Justice Nagarathna said.

Referring to the allegations on record, the judge added,

“What exactly did the boy’s family say? You people are beggars; you cannot pay. The girl’s family was pleading to save their daughter and they were being called beggars.”

When the counsel attempted to respond, the judge interjected.

“You should have kept quiet. Bride’s father said they can give ₹60k and you call them beggars?”

The petitioner’s counsel also pointed to a delay in lodging the FIR but the Court did not find merit in the argument.

“Let the message go. This is how brides are treated,” the Court said.

Underscoring the troubling normalisation of such conduct even among the privileged, Justice Bhuyan remarked,

“These are educated people.”

The Court ultimately upheld the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

Advocate Rishi Jaiswal appeared for the petitioner.

[Read Live Coverage]