The Karnataka High Court has observed that a husband suggesting to his wife or asking her to pursue her education further, cannot be considered as cruelty.

A single judge bench of Justice Dr HB Prabhakara Sastry allowed the revision petition filed by Dr Shashidhar Subbanna and his mother and set aside the conviction handed down to them by the trial court for offences punishable under Section 498-A and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The couple resided in the US. The complainant alleged that her husband asked her to continue further studies and to find a job, so that, it helps in maintaining the family and in meeting monthly expenses.

“It cannot be understood as to how come the husband making a suggestion to his wife to acquire more knowledge and to pursue higher studies would amount to cruelty,” the court said.

“Since both the complainant and accused No.1 being highly educated and had good interaction prior to their marriage and more particularly, discussed about their future course of life, including further education of the complainant and her job opportunities, the accused No.1 either suggesting her or asking her to pursue her education further, cannot be considered as cruelty.”

It noted that the complainant had herself stated that prior to the marriage, they had a discussion that after joining her husband in the US, she may have to pursue higher studies and find some employment to meet the expenses of the family. It was not the case that without any prior discussion, her husband all of a sudden forced her that she should find out employment.

The complainant had also alleged that on the very first night of their marriage, her husband told her that he does not want to have a child for about three years, and that he would think about the same after completion of his M.S.Degree, but his family used to pressurize her about having a child.

“A talk between husband and wife as to when they should have a child or what is the view of a spouse about having a child and what would be the right time for them is a common talk between the spouses to have a good planning about their family. As such, merely because the husband expresses his view, the same cannot be considered either as harassment or as a cruelty,” the bench said.

The complainant also alleged that the accused was given cash of ₹50,000, a golden ring and a Sherwani. However, the witnesses, being elder brothers of the complainant, had admitted that it is their custom for exchanging the valuables, including cash and golden ornaments between the families of bride and bridegroom.

“The prosecution has not placed any other evidence to prove the alleged demand said to have been made by the accused. When undisputedly PW-1 was a Master Graduate in Science and having worldly knowledge and also accessible to Computer and E-mail, somewhere and in some form she could have maintained some records with respect to the alleged demand for additional dowry said to have been made by the accused,” the bench observed.

Further the bench observed, “The income of accused No.1 while he was staying in United States of America along with PW-1 and his parents was not less than a sum of ₹10 lakhs. In the absence of any of the corroborative evidence and a very weak and self-serving oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4, which too have been denied in their cross-examination, would fail to establish that there was any demand from the accused for dowry or that they have accepted or taken any dowry.”

Keeping in the mind the above observation, the court acquitted the accused.