A Delhi court has held that "mere taunts and jibes for bringing insufficient dowry" does not amount to causing harassment to woman or subjecting her to cruelty for dowry, unless there is a persistent demand for it aimed at forcing her to meet it.
Metropolitan Magistrate Shunali Gupta gave this ruling while acquitting a railway employee along with his mother in a 17-year-old case of causing harassment to his post graduate teacher (PGT) wife for dowry.
"Taunting for not bringing sufficient dowry is distinct from demand of dowry and should not be confused with (the offence itself)," the magistrate said.
"Though, taunting for bringing insufficient dowry is also an uncivilized act but does not come within the purview of the section 498-A IPC, sufficient to constitute the offence i.e., cruelty to the complainant with respect to non fulfillment of demand of dowry," said the magistrate.
"With reference to section 498-A IPC, the sine quo non (essential requisition) is that there must be a demand in contradiction with mere taunts, jibes and that demand should be with a view to pressurize the complainant/her relatives to meet the demand for dowry," she said.
The court also reasoned that "unhappy matrimonial life per se does not imply that there has been commission of offence of harassment for dowry and cruelty."
"To adjudge the guilt under the penal provision, it has always to be beyond the shadow of doubt that is upon impeachable, cogent evidence which gives no escape but to accept commission of offence alone," the court said.
The court gave the ruling in a criminal case lodged by Ragini, who was married to railway employee Jitender Kumar, a resident of Mangolpuri area in North West Delhi area, in 1992.
Soon after her marriage, she had approached the Mangolpuri police alleging that her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law have been harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry.
She even told police that she was being administered slow poison by her husband and in-laws due to which she had to be repeatedly taken to hospital, albeit by her in-laws themselves.
Even while hurling a string of allegations against her husband and in-laws, she told the police that "she is still ready to reside with her husband if he behaves nicely with her."
Ragini also told that "the jewellery given by her parents in marriage is in her possession and the jewellery given by her in laws is with them only."
The matter was first examined by the Crime Against Woman Cell, which recommended registration of the FIR against Jitender and his mother, recommending, however, no case against his brother.
The court, however, after a long protracted trial, acquitted Jitender and his mother after finding hosts of inconsistencies in Ragini's statements and depositions.
https://www.indianexpress.com/news/dowry-taunts-and-jibes-do-not-amount-to-harassment-court/772418/
