Supreme Court directs man to pay ₹3 lakh to bride for breaking marriage over gold demand

The Supreme Court recently directed a man who ended his marriage with his wife due to her failure to meet his demands for gold, to pay ₹3 lakh as compensation to her [M Venkateswaran Versus The State]. .A Bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and SV Bhatti upheld the conviction of one M Venkateswaran under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for refusing to cooperate with the wedding reception after the bride's family declined his demand for 100 sovereigns of gold as dowry."We are satisfied that the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC are fully satisfied and that the appellant subjected PW- 4 (wife) to harassment with a view to coercing her and her mother to meet the unlawful demand for the gold sovereigns and continued to harass her when PW-4 and her relatives failed to meet such demand. The ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act are clearly made out," the January 24 order said..The Supreme Court was hearing a plea challenging a 2022 order of the Madras High Court that had confirmed the conviction of one M Venkateswaran (appellant) under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. .The case stemmed from allegations made by Venkateswaran's wife, Sridevi, accusing him of dowry harassment and mental cruelty during their marriage, which lasted only three days. It was alleged that Venkateswaran refused to cooperate during the wedding reception due to unmet dowry demands..The marriage between the two was solemnized in 2006 but ended shortly thereafter, leading to a 2007 complaint implicating Venkateswaran, his late father and his brother under Section 498A IPC (cruelty to wife), Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust), Section 420 IPC (cheating), Section 506(2) IPC (criminal intimidation), and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (penalty for demanding dowry).The trial court acquitted the appellant’s brother of all charges and acquitted the appellant of charges under Section 420 IPC (cheating) and Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation) but convicted him under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Penalty for Demanding Dowry).He was sentenced to three years in jail under Section 498A IPC and one year under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.Aggrieved by the order of trail court, the appellant in 2017 challenged it before the Additional Sessions Judge. Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction under Section 406 IPC but upheld the remaining convictions. In 2022, the Madras High Court also confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence under Section 498A IPC to two years while retaining the one-year sentence under Section 4 DP Act.Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court..After reviewing the evidence, which included testimony from 15 witnesses corroborating the allegations of dowry harassment, the Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s conviction. However, it modified the sentence to the period already undergone..Considering the 19 years of prolonged litigation, the fact that both parties had moved on with their lives, and the appellant’s willingness to contribute to community service, the Supreme Court directed the appellant to pay ₹3,00,000 as compensation to the complainant within four weeks."Admittedly, the incident pertains to the year 2006. The marriage was solemnized on 31.03.2006 and the couple lived together exactly for three days. As noticed .from the High Court order, the de facto complainant is married and settled abroad. The case has been prolonged for a period of nearly 19 years. Both the appellant and PW-4 have moved on in life," the Court said.The Court further clarified that failure to deposit the compensation would result in the dismissal of the appeal and enforcement of the remaining sentence..[Read Judgement]