Karnataka High Court quashes dowry harassment case against politician whose wife married nine times

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a dowry harassment case against a politician after noting that his wife was alleged to have contracted nine marriages.

Justice M Nagaprasanna held that the allegations of cruelty, assault, intentional insult and criminal intimidation against the Hosapete-based politician lacked the specific factual foundation required to sustain a criminal prosecution.

“The filing of a charge sheet cannot breathe life into an accusation which, even upon acceptance at its face value, fails to disclose the essential ingredients of a criminal offence,” the Court observed.

The Court, however, clarified that a woman’s matrimonial history, irrespective of the number of marriages, cannot by itself be a ground to disbelieve allegations of criminal wrongdoing. It said that the complaint must independently be examined to determine whether the ingredients of the offences alleged are made out.

The couple married on January 13, 2022. The relationship subsequently deteriorated, leading to matrimonial disputes and criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant wife against husband and other members of his family. The police investigated the complaint and filed a charge sheet against the husband, while dropping the other family members from the case.

The husband claimed that the complainant wife had married nine times and that the criminal proceedings against him were part of a recurring pattern allegedly intended to secure monetary benefits.

The wife acknowledged certain previous marriages but submitted that they had taken place after obtaining divorce, talaq or khula from the respective spouses. She further argued that there was sufficient material to proceed against the husband for cruelty and dowry harassment.

The Court noted the husband's claim that his marriage to the complainant was her seventh, while the documents relied upon by him indicated that she subsequently entered into an eighth and ninth marriage. It also took on record an affidavit attributed to the wife's ninth husband, alleging that she had threatened to initiate dowry harassment proceedings against him and his family unless monetary demands were met.

“The sequence, as projected by the petitioner, is striking. One marriage follows another; matrimonial discord is followed by litigation; litigation, in several instances, is followed by settlement; and the matrimonial journey thereafter proceeds to yet another alliance," the Court said.

However, the Court cautioned against treating the number of marriages as a basis for drawing adverse conclusions about the complainant.

“The number of marriages contracted by a person cannot, by itself, constitute an indictment of character or furnish a presumption of criminal misconduct. Nor can the institution of criminal proceedings by a woman against her former husbands, without more, render a subsequent complaint unworthy of consideration."

After going through the complaint and the charge sheet, the Court found that the allegations were bald and omnibus, without specific acts or particulars capable of satisfying the statutory ingredients of the offences.

The Court noted that the material did not disclose conduct satisfying the definition under Section 498A IPC (cruelty by husband or his relatives), Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt), or Section 504 IPC (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation by threats of injury to person, reputation or property).

It observed that mere matrimonial discord, in the absence of the requisite factual foundation, could not be elevated into criminal cruelty.

The Court further said that the use of expressions such as “cruelty”, “harassment” or “dowry demand” would not, by itself, constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC.

“Criminal culpability cannot rest upon adjectives bereft of particulars. The law requires allegations of conduct, not merely conclusions about conduct,” it said.

The Court accordingly allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings against husband.

Advocate C Parameswarappa appeared for petitioner.

High Court Government Pleader K Nageshwarappa appeared for the State.

Advocate Haleema Ameen represented the complainant.

[Read Judgment]