Mindset That Women Should Endure Suffering In Matrimonial Homes Emboldens Perpetrators: Delhi High Court On Dowry Deaths

While denying bail to a husband in a dowry death case, the Delhi High Court has said that the mindset that women should continue to endure suffering in their matrimonial homes as it is the “right” thing to do after marriage “emboldens” perpetrators.

“This mindset emboldens, and is exploited by, perpetrators including a husband, who kills his wife, exploiting the situation that the victim wife has nowhere else to go, as her parental family is also advising her to live with him despite the torture and physical abuse. In cases such as the present one, granting bail liberally could encourage such practices and offences,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

The Court observed that even though Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, has been in existence for almost 40 years, Courts are saddened by cases reflecting that women are still harassed, tortured and killed, merely because they are married in a family which keeps demanding money and dowry as a matter of right due to the matrimonial alliance.

Furthermore, it said that families of the victims frequently mention in their statements that their daughters had complained about being tortured and feared for their lives due to unmet dowry demands.

However, the Court added that due to societal pressure and the fear of social stigma, the families often suggest or compel their daughters to continue to try and adjust and live in their matrimonial homes, where they are subsequently killed or driven to suicide.

“Judgments in such cases serve as a medium to highlight to society how young lives can be tragically lost under these circumstances and it may not always be advisable to convey message to the victim of dowry harassment and threats who are visibly beaten and battered by their husbands, that they should continue to endure suffering in their matrimonial homes as it is the “right” thing to do after marriage,” it said.

The Court denied bail to the husband in an FIR registered in 2021 for the offences under Section 302, 304B, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that he committed murder of his wife after about two months of solemnization of their marriage.

Justice Sharma rejected the husband's argument that there was no incriminating evidence against him regarding the motive or demand of dowry being the cause behind death of the victim.

The Court also took exception to his argument that he was heavily drunk and killed her at the spur of the moment since an altercation had taken place between them.

“To trivialize a case of murder on the ground that the accused and the victim, being husband and wife, had an altercation and therefore, the husband being drunk at the spur of the moment, had killed her, is not only unacceptable but also shocking,” it said.

The Court also observed: “The law does not give right to any person to kill another, and to try to carve out a separate category and plea to consider a case on a different footing, in case a husband kills his wife since he had consumed alcohol and there was allegedly an altercation, will be against the principles of criminal jurisprudence.”

Title: KULDEEP SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 59

Click here to read order