The Kerala High Court recently held that a mere demand for dowry or any property or valuable security without the ingredient of ‘cruelty’ would not attract the offence under Section 498A IPC.

 It held that when both elements of demand and cruelty are combined, then liability would be fastened on an accused. 

 “A demand for dowry or any property or valuable security without the ingredient of “cruelty” as explained under clause (a) or (b) will not attract the said offence, but a combined effect of both these would bring home the liability under Section 498 A IPC,” Justice P. Somarajan observed.  

In this case, the wife, who is the de facto complainant in this case, alleged that the husband had raised a demand for more dowry and assaulted her, at her residence. However, the nature of the assault was not explained by the de facto complainant or any of the witnesses who were examined.

The Court took note that no evidence to show any kind of assault or injuries due to the same, nor any medical evidence in this regard.

The Court opined that in order to constitute the offence of cruelty under Section 498A IPC, it ought to be satisfied that the husband or his relatives subjected the woman (the wife) to cruelty. 

Perusing Section 498A IPC, the Court determined that the following ingredients ought to be satisfied to attract the offence, namely:

i. harassment on account of an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security by the husband or his relatives; 

ii. such act is towards the wife or her relatives; and 

iii. the wife or her relatives were subjected to harassment (cruelty) with a view to coerce her or her relatives to meet such unlawful demand or the harassment is on account of failure to meet such demand. 

It noted that neither ‘harassment’ nor ‘coercion’ had been defined under the Code. It thus observed that the terms ought to be understood in relation to the mischief sought to be suppressed under the said provision, and not the dictionary meaning of the terms. 

It thus read the term ‘coercion’ in terms of the definition in Section 15 of the Contract Act, which refers to an act to ‘meet any unlawful demand or on account of failure to meet such demand’, and ‘harassment’ as an act of ‘such nature sufficient to coerce either the wife or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security or on account of failure to meet that demand. 

The court was of opinion that small instances of ill-treatment or trivial disputes that may arise between the spouses or their relatives in the course of life would not be sufficient to constitute the offence of ‘cruelty’ under Section 498A of IPC.

The Court also relied upon a plethora of precedents to observe that,

“…consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman are required to be established in order to bring home the application of Section 498 A IPC”.

Justice Somarajan further reminded that the Apex Court had cautioned against the practice of implicating the husband and his near relatives, which would lead to immense sufferings to them, or even go to the extent of breaking the marital relations between the parties. 

The Court also proceeded to caution authorities while registering cases alleging offence under Section 498A IPC , merely on the basis of trivial disputes between spouses. 

“The practice of registering FIR alleging offence under Section 498 A IPC and setting the criminal law in motion on the basis of trivial disputes or differences between the spouses or the relatives may not reflect the legislative intent or the mischief to be suppressed under that provision, hence, the authorities should be more vigilant and cautious while setting the criminal law in motion and shall not unnecessarily drag such mundane disputes or differences between the spouses or their relatives in a criminal prosecution for the offence under Section 498 A IPC,” it observed. 

Finding that there was no acceptable evidence to prove manhandling nor any document evidencing any earlier incident or assault on the victim, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner accused under Section 498A IPC, and acquitted him. 

The revision petition was thus disposed.