Dowry demand not essential to invoke Section 498A IPC on cruelty to wife: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that demand for dowry is not a pre-requisite to invoke the offence of cruelty to wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). .A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale said that the core of the offence under Section 498A IPC lies in the act of cruelty and does not purely revolve around the demand for dowry.Hence, the absence of an explicit dowry demand does not negate the applicability of the provision where acts of physical violence and mental distress have been demonstrated, the Court held."The presence of a dowry demand is not a prerequisite for establishing cruelty under the Section," the order dated December 12, 2024 said..Presence of a dowry demand is not a prerequisite for establishing cruelty under Section 498A IPC.Supreme Court.The Court was hearing an appeal against a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashing Section 498A proceedings against one Aluri Thirupathi Rao. Rao was accused of beating his wife, forcing her to leave the matrimonial house. Though she tried to return several times, she was prevented from entering the house, it was alleged.The police investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet against Rao and his mother.They then approached the High Court which quashed the case in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)..The High Court seemingly accepted the submission made by the accused that the allegations against them would not constitute the offence under Section 498A IPC since there was no complaint that they harassed the wife for dowry.The wife then appealed to the Supreme Court..Before the Supreme Court, the accused took the stance that the explanation appended to Section 498A IPC requires that there must be a demand for dowry to constitute “cruelty” under the said Section.The Court then examined Section 498A. It noted that the Section provides a broad and inclusive definition of 'cruelty', encompassing both physical and mental harm to the woman's body or health. "In addition, it covers acts of harassment designed to coerce the woman or her family into fulfilling unlawful demands for property or valuable security, including demands related to dowry. Notably, the provision also recognizes acts that create circumstances leading a woman to the point of suicide as a form of cruelty," the Court said..It further noted that Section 498A IPC recognizes two distinct forms of cruelty: one involving physical or mental harm in clause (a) of the explanation and the other involving harassment linked to unlawful demands for property or valuable security in clause (b) of the explanation.These two provisions are to be read disjunctively, meaning that the presence of a dowry demand is not a prerequisite for establishing cruelty under the Section, the Court underscored."The definition of "harassment" under the Explanation to Section 498A is specifically outlined in clause (b), independent to the “wilful conduct” described in clause (a), thus necessitating a separate reading of the two. It is significant to note that the inclusion of the word “or” at the end of clause (a) clearly indicates that "cruelty" for the purposes of Section 498A can either involve wilful conduct that causes mental or physical harm or harassment related to unlawful demands, such as dowry," the order said..Hence, it set aside the High Court order and reinstated the criminal proceedings under Section 498A. Advocates Mullapudi Ambabu, Mahima Pandey of M/S. M. Rambabu And Co. appeared for the wife.Senior Advocate Ravi Shankar Jandhyala and advocates Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Sunny Kumar, Prateek Raushan, Aaditi Singh, Raju Kumar, Prerna Singh, Guntur Pramod Kumar and Dhruv Yadav appeared for the husband and other respondents..[Read Order]