Husband's distant relatives implicated in dowry cases: Delhi High Court flags misuse of Section 498A

The Delhi High Court recently observed that there has been a growing tendency to rope in distant relatives of the husband in dowry cases even if there is no evidence against them [Shashi Arora & Anr v State through Commissioner of Police & Ors]. 

Justice Amit Mahajan observed that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalises cruelty to wife by husband or his relatives, was introduced to curb the scourge and manifestations of crimes related to the demand of dowry and to protect married women from cruelty in their matrimonial house.

But sweeping and mechanical implications of even distant relatives in Section 498A offence dilute the intent with which the provision was incorporated, the Court underscored.

“However, as observed by Courts in a plethora of judgments, there has been a growing tendency to rope in even distant relatives of husbands being uncles, aunts, extended family members - who do not even reside at the matrimonial house of the woman and even in the dearth of evidence to highlight their active involvement in the alleged acts of cruelty solely for the reason that such relatives may have been privy to the matrimonial acrimony of the parties. Such omnibus, sweeping and mechanical implication, however, bereft of concrete evidence, dilutes the very intent and sanctity with which the provision was incorporated,” the Court observed. 

Justice Mahajan was dealing with a plea filed by two women seeking the quashing of the dowry harassment case against them. 

The FIR was lodged by a woman, who alleged cruelty and dowry-related harassment by her husband and his relatives.

According to the complaint, the woman accused her husband’s extended family, including his aunt (mother’s sister) and cousin, the petitioners in the case, of repeatedly interfering in her married life and making threatening remarks. She also claimed that her jewellery and gifts were taken away by them. 

The petitioners argued that they were distant relatives who did not live with the complainant and were being falsely implicated in a matrimonial dispute.

After considering the case, the High Court quashed the FIR and the consequential proceedings. 

Advocates Biraja Mahapatra, Nalin Hingorani and Raunak Jain appeared for the petitioners. 

Additional Standing Counsel Rupali Bandopadhya with advocates Abhijeet Kumar and  Amisha Gupta appeared for the State. 

[Read Order]