The Supreme Court has ruled that a dowry demand is not a prerequisite to establish the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court clarified that the provision recognizes two distinct forms of cruelty: physical or mental harm and harassment intended to coerce a woman into meeting unlawful demands for property or valuable security.
Cruelty Beyond Dowry Demand
The Court observed that while both forms of cruelty can coexist, the absence of a dowry demand does not negate the application of Section 498A in cases involving mental or physical harassment. The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale emphasized that the core element of the offence lies in the act of cruelty itself and is not solely linked to dowry demands.
As per the explanation under Section 498A IPC, cruelty includes:
Wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave harm to her mental or physical health.
Harassment to force a woman or her relatives to meet unlawful demands.
The Court clarified that these two clauses must be read separately. Relying on the precedent set in U. Suvetha v. State (2009) 6 SCC 757, the Court reiterated that either form of cruelty is sufficient to invoke Section 498A.
Case Background
In the present case, the wife alleged that her husband and his relatives had physically assaulted her. Based on her complaint, authorities initiated criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC. The accused challenged this before the High Court, which quashed the case. Thus, citing the absence of any dowry demand. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had erred in dismissing the case. It was solely on the grounds of no dowry demand. It reiterated that Section 498A protects women from all forms of cruelty. This is whether or not related to dowry. The Court emphasized that the word “or” in the explanation to Section 498A clearly shows that willful harm or coercive harassment can prove cruelty.
The Court emphasized that the law addresses cruelty against married women beyond dowry-related offenses.
Setting aside the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court reinstated the criminal proceedings against the accused. This decision reinforces the broader protective intent of Section 498A. It ensures that victims of domestic cruelty receive justice, irrespective of dowry involvement.
