Not giving food to wife due to unmet dowry demand is cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that denying food to a married woman due to unmet dowry demands constitutes physical and mental cruelty..A bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia further observed that compelling a married woman to live in her parental home on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry would also amount to mental harassment, punishable under Section 498A (cruelty to wife) of Indian Penal Code (IPC)..The Court made these observation in an order passed on March 4 rejecting a plea filed by a husband and his family members, seeking to quash a first information report (FIR) filed at the instance of the wife for offences under Sections 498A (cruelty), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 34 (common intention) of IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act..The FIR in question was filed by wife alleging that after her marriage to applicant-husband in April 2018, her father provided sufficient dowry. However, the husband and her in-laws withheld food from her, leaving her hungry and thirsty. The FIR asserted that she endured mental harassment because an air conditioned car was not provided as part of dowry..Additionally, the FIR said that for the past one year, she had been staying at her parental home as the applicants allegedly failed to bring her back to the matrimonial home. Thus husband and his family moved the High Court challenging the FIR, contending that respondent-wife had levelled vague allegations against them.They argued that the FIR was a 'counterblast' to the allegations and complaints made by husband against his wife..After considering the facts of the case and the allegations outlined in the FIR, the Court observed that withholding food from a married woman because of unmet dowry demands would unquestionably constitute both physical and mental harassment.Merely because the FIR has been lodged after filing of divorce plea by the husband, the same cannot be quashed on the ground that it was a counter blast, the Court further added."If the FIR lodged after filing of divorce petition is considered, then it can also be said that the respondent No.2 might be interested in saving her matrimonial life, therefore, she kept quiet and only when she realized that now her husband has gone to the extent where the possibility of reconciliation is bleak, then if she lodges the FIR for the misdeeds done to her than it cannot be said that it is by way of counter blast to the divorce petition," the Court remarked..The Court concluded that the relationship of husband and in-laws with wife was not cordial and the husband had gone to the extent of making allegations of adultery against the wife."If the allegation of adultery is found to be incorrect, then that allegation, by itself, would amount to cruelty. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference. The application fails and is hereby dismissed," the Court observed.Advocate Nishant Agrawal appeared for petitioners.Government Advocate KS Baghel represented the State. None appeared for the wife..[Read Order]