Allahabad HC rules financial demand from in-laws for business is not dowry

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad HC quashed a dowry cruelty case filed by a woman against her husband and his relatives, finding the allegations vague and insufficient. The case primarily revolved around the claim that the husband and his family pressured the woman to obtain Rs 2,00,000 from her parents to start a business.

Justice Anish Kumar Gupta, presiding over the case, held that such a financial request did not constitute dowry under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. “The demand of money as alleged in the instant FIR for carrying out a business by the husband from his in-laws would not come within the ambit of dowry,” the court stated.

The court further noted that other claims made by the woman were general, vague, and inconsistent, making it unjust to harass the husband and his relatives based on these allegations. As a result, the court deemed the case an attempt at malicious prosecution and dismissed the proceedings.

The order was issued in response to a plea by the husband and his relatives under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash the case registered against them at Fajalganj police station in Kanpur Nagar district, Uttar Pradesh. The charges included Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The couple married in 2012, and five years later, in 2017, the woman filed the FIR against eleven individuals, including her husband, in-laws, and extended family members. She claimed that despite her family spending around Rs 8,00,000 on the wedding, including jewelry and gifts, her husband and his family continued to torture her for more dowry. She alleged that she was told to bring Rs 2,00,000 from her parents to avoid further torture. She also claimed that the stress from the harassment caused her to miscarry and led to her mother’s death from the pressure.

During the investigation, the woman’s statements were found to be inconsistent. She initially could not confirm whether all eleven individuals named in the FIR lived together and later specified that only her husband and his siblings harassed her over dowry demands, while these siblings lived separately. She could not provide medical certificates to substantiate claims of injuries from the alleged torture.

The counsel for the accused argued that since the family members lived separately, they would not benefit from any money demanded, implying that only the husband would have. The court referred to several precedents, including Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (2012) and R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (1960), to support its decision to quash the case.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the financial demand for business purposes did not qualify as dowry, and the vague and inconsistent allegations did not warrant further legal action. The case was dismissed, bringing an end to the proceedings against the husband and his relatives.

You might also be interested in – Allahabad HC advise lawyers not to refer judges as “My Lord”