Don’t tell married daughters to adjust; take cruelty complaints seriously: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently emphasised that parents and other family members of a married woman must not ignore her complaints of dowry-harassment or domestic cruelty [Dinesh Kumar and Ors v State of UP]

A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdesh Kumar Chaudhary said that advising victims of dowry harassment or matrimonial cruelty to adjust and compromise will embolden the perpetrators.

"Quite often a victim of dowry-related harassment is advised to adjust, compromise or save the marriage, despite repeatedly informing their families about the cruelty being inflicted upon her. This Court is of the view that seldom such advice may unintentionally embolden the perpetrators and expose the victim to continued abuse, ultimately resulting in tragic and irreversible consequences of even death of the victim," the Court said.

The Court made the observation on July 27 while dealing with a dowry death case of a woman and her 15-month-old daughter.

The Court noted that the victim had on several occasions told her family members about the persistent dowry demands of her in-laws and the harassment she was being subjected to by them. 

Such repeated complaints ought not to have been treated as ordinary matrimonial disagreements, the Bench said. It added that they should have been recognised as genuine cries for help, protection and timely intervention. 

“This Court is of the view that the facts of the present case serves as a reminder that whenever a daughter repeatedly approaches her family seeking assistance and expresses the harassment, fear and humiliation she is facing in her matrimonial home, her concerns deserve to be heard with empathy, seriousness and urgency. It is the moral as well as the social responsibility of the family to support her, believe her version and take all necessary steps to ensure her safety and dignity,” the Bench said.

The Court was dealing with criminal appeals moved by the victim’s husband, two brother-in-laws, mother-in-law and her father-law. They were convicted under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment by a trial court in 2016. 

In the case dating back to 2011, 25-year-old Meena Devi and her 15-month-old daughter were killed in connection with an unfilled dowry demand.

It was alleged that while ₹2.26 lakh were paid by the victim’s family members at the time of marriage, there was an additional demand of a motorcycle and ₹1 lakh.

The High Court ruled that the evidence clearly established the legal requirements for dowry death and domestic cruelty. It, thus, upheld the conviction.

Underscoring the need for urgent intervention in dowry death cases, the Court observed that while legal proceedings to secure justice are necessary and commendable, they cannot replace timely intervention that may prevent such deaths.

The present case is not merely about holding the accused accountable and convicting them as per law, rather it conveys a larger message that every plea for help made by a daughter must be treated with compassion, seriousness and prompt action, the Court emphasised.

“Timely intervention can prevent irreparable loss, whereas delayed remorse and litigation cannot bring back a life that has already been lost,” the Bench said.

The Court added that it is the shared responsibility of families, communities and society to ensure that no woman is compelled to suffer in silence and that every call for help is answered. 

"Families, relatives and society at large must recognize that every complaint of dowry harassment or domestic cruelty deserves immediate attention, so as to have meaningful and effective resolution, before it is too late," the Bench stated.

Though the Court upheld the conviction, it reduced the sentence of the accused from life imprisonment to the period already undergone.

It said the trial court had failed to record a reasoning for awarding the maximum punishment under Section 304-B of IPC.

Advocates Deepshikha Singh, Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Ghulam Mohammad Kamil, Kunwer Dhananjay Singh, Piyush Kumar Singh and Vyas Narayan Shukla represented the convicts.

[Read Judgment]