The Delhi High Court recently held that repeatedly taunting a woman about “small car” and “less gold” given as dowry can constitute cruelty as a ground for divorce..Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the wife in a matrimonial dispute had been repeatedly taunted for not bringing enough dowry."The alleged remarks, that the complainant had promised a bigger car but had given money sufficient only for a smaller car, and that the gold articles given were less than what had been promised, prima facie indicate harassment of the deceased in connection with alleged dowry demands," held the Court..The Court partly set aside a trial court order which had discharged the husband of offences under Sections 498A (cruelty by a husband or his relatives) and 304B (dowry death) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It held the husband should still face trial for cruelty, though not for dowry death..The case relates to the death of a woman in 2022, within a year of her marriage, after she had fallen off the roof of her matrimonial home in North East Delhi. Her father later told the police that she had been facing harassment from her husband and in-laws over dowry.The woman's family members also supported this version in their statements. They said that the husband would taunt her with remarks like,"Tumhare baap ne to badi gaadi dene ki baat ki thi lekin chhoti gaadi ke paise diye, jo sona dene ka vaada kiya tha, woh bhi kam diya. (Your father spoke of giving a large car, but provided the money for a small one and even the gold he had promised to give was given in a lesser quantity.)".Based on this material, the High Court said that there was enough to at least proceed with a trial for cruelty."The allegations levelled against the respondent-husband disclose harassment connected with alleged dowry demands and, therefore, cannot be brushed aside at the stage of framing of charge," observed the Court..The Court also disagreed with the trial court’s view that such remarks were too minor to count as cruelty. It held repeated taunts over dowry cannot be treated as casual comments at this stage of the case."The truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations is a matter of trial. In the facts of the present case, repeated taunts relating to dowry demands, if taken at face value, cannot be treated as casual remarks at this stage.".The trial court had earlier discharged the husband in part by relying on his personal circumstances. It had noted that he was a widower with two young children and had remarried to provide them with care and stability. It had reasoned that in such a situation, he would have little incentive to harass his second wife over dowry.The High Court found this line of reasoning misplaced. Whether or not the husband had genuine reasons to remarry, it said, does not automatically mean that allegations of harassment are untrue..However, the Court declined to interfere with the husband’s discharge under Section 304B IPC (dowry death). It explained that the law requires proof that the woman was harassed for dowry “soon before” her death. In this case, while there were allegations of earlier taunts, the Court recorded that there was no clear evidence showing that the alleged harassment happened shortly before her death.Accordingly, the High Court directed the trial court to frame charges against the husband only for cruelty under Section 498A IPC and proceed with the trial..Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Naresh Kumar Chahar appeared for the State.Advocates Manish Rohilla, Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Mahesh Arasu, Abhishek Singh and Aman Singh represented the husband.Advocates Anand Shankar and Amit Kumar appeared for the woman's father..[Read Order]
