Those Harassing Daughter-In-Law For Giving Birth To Girl Child Should Know That Chromosomes Of Their Son Decides Child's Gender: Delhi HC

While dealing with a dowry death case which involved alleged harassment of the daughter-in-law for giving birth to a girl child, the Delhi High Court has observed that perpetrators of such crimes need to be educated that it is their son and not the daughter-in-law whose chromosomes, through union of a married couple, will decide the birth of the unborn child.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the “genetic science” is totally ignored according to which, the genetic determination of gender of the unborn child, involves the combination of X and Y chromosomes, with females possessing XX chromosomes and males having X and one Y chromosome each.

“This Court having dealt with numerous cases of harassment, nagging and committing of suicide or dowry deaths due to the victim being victimized for giving birth to daughters after being constantly nagged that she has not been able to fulfill her husband and in-laws desire of preserving the family tree, is constrained to observe that such people need to be educated that it is their son and not their daughter-in-law whose chromosomes through union of a married couple will decide the birth of a daughter or a son,” the court said.

It added: “Even if, this judgment becomes the birth place of such enlightenment, it will go a long way to change the mindsets of perpetrators of such crimes and save lives of innocent married women, by use of principles of science through principles of law.”

The court observed that the persistent prevalence of regressive mindsets and instances exemplified by cases involving insatiable demands for dowry underscores a broader societal concern.

“It highlights the challenges faced by married women, whose intrinsic value and dignity should not be contingent upon their parents' ability to meet the insatiable financial demands from their in-laws,” the court said.

Furthermore, it added that the idea of a woman's worth being tied to material considerations such as dowry, contradicts the principles of equality and dignity.

“The notion that a woman's value diminishes if her parents cannot fulfill dowry expectations of her husband and in-laws reflects a deep-seated bias and discrimination against women. Such expectations not only violate the principles of gender equality but also contribute to an environment where women are objectified and reduced to mere transactions,” the court observed.

Justice Sharma made the observations while denying bail to a husband in a dowry death case. 

The deceased's father in his complaint alleged that the husband, along with his family members, used to subject his daughter to mental and physical torment on account of demand for dowry, ultimately leading to her committing suicide. 

It was also alleged that they pressured her for additional dowry and financial demands, causing significant distress and that she was taunted and mistreated for giving birth to a girl child.

The FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B (dowry death), 498A (cruelty) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Dismissing the husband's bail plea, the court said that the tragic aspect of the case was in the fact that the deceased was allegedly subjected to harassment at the hands of her husband and in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry, a car smaller which they used to call as “iron box” and used to mock her for the same.

Noting further that the deceased was allegedly continuously nagged and harassed for giving birth to two daughters, Justice Sharma said:

“In this Court's opinion, in a society that emphasizes equality and strives for equal progress of women and women empowerment, incidents as the present one are etched as disheartening markers on the path of equal societal advancement for women.”

The court added: “The trauma is multiplied and becomes lifelong when the victim of a matrimonial dowry related offence gives up her life due to constant torture and harassment, especially when the two children she has procreated and loved who are her daughters also become a ground to nag, harass and traumatizing her, as if, she is solely responsible for giving birth to daughters.”

Making prima facie observations at the stage of bail, Justice Sharma said that a woman had lost her life for giving birth to females which should be “totally unacceptable to a conscientious society.”

“Such offences have to be considered as grave and serious when the trial is yet to be begin,” the court said.

Counsel for Applicant: Mr. Kapil Gupta and Ms. Neha Tiwari, Advocates

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for the State; Mr. Shannu Baghel, Advocate for complainant