Husband Asking Wife To Pursue Further Education, Expressing Views About Having A Child Not 'Cruelty': Karnataka High Court

A single judge bench of Justice Dr HB Prabhakara Sastry allowed the revision petition filed by Dr Shashidhar Subbanna and his mother and set aside the conviction handed down to them by the trial court for offences punishable under Section 498-A and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The accused were convicted by the trial court vide its order dated September 7, 2013 and the same was upheld by the sessions court in appeal by its order dated December 1, 2016.

Husband asking wife to continue education not cruelty

The couple resided in the US. The complainant alleged that her husband asked her to continue further studies and to find a job, so that, it helps in maintaining the family and in meeting monthly expenses.

"It cannot be understood as to how come the husband making a suggestion to his wife to acquire more knowledge and to pursue higher studies would amount to cruelty," the Court remarked at the outset.

It noted that the complainant had herself stated that prior to the marriage, they had a discussion that after joining her husband in the US, she may have to pursue higher studies and find some employment to meet the expenses of the family. It was not the case that without any prior discussion, her husband all of a sudden forced her that she should find out employment.

It added, "Since both the complainant and accused No.1 being highly educated and had good interaction prior to their marriage and more particularly, discussed about their future course of life, including further education of the complainant and her job opportunities, the accused No.1 either suggesting her or asking her to pursue her education further, cannot be considered as cruelty."

The Court went on to note that the "sole aim" of both the parties was to live in the US and in this pursuit, the husband had asked the complainant to secure a job and acquire H1 VISA, so that, in case of expiry/ lapse or non renewal of his VISA, he could still continue to stay there.

Though the court said that the Petitioner may have given undue importance to living abroad, the same can not be considered as a cruelty attracting Section 498-A of IPC.

Family Planning not cruelty

The complainant had alleged that on the very first night of their marriage, her husband told her that he does not want to have a child for about three years, and that he would think about the same after completion of his M.S.Degree, whereas his family used to pester her about having a child.

In this regard the bench said,

"A talk between husband and wife as to when they should have a child or what is the view of a spouse about having a child and what would be the right time for them is a common talk between the spouses to have a good planning about their family. As such, merely because the husband expresses his view, the same cannot be considered either as harassment or as a cruelty."

Asking woman to learn language spoken by her in-laws not cruelty

The complainant had alleged that she was asked to learn Tamil language and she was also asked to play shuttle and cards with her in-laws. In this regard the bench said, "It is not in dispute that the language of communication among the accused in their family was Tamil as they were Iyers with Tamil as their language of communication."

It added,

"It cannot be called as unnatural because, when a new member, though as a daughter-in- law, enters the family of her husband, the members of the husband's family expects that the new member mingles among them even culturally also, for which purpose, effective communication would be through the language which all the members in the family would understand in a proper and uniform manner. If the new member fails to understand the language in which the other members of the family in her matrimonial home communicate, then, this new member i.e., daughter-in-law may feel isolated or singled-out. As such, the suggestion given by the accused to the complainant to learn Tamil, which even according to PWs.1 to 4, was not a coercive act of the accused, cannot be treated as a cruelty meted to complainant." 

On allegations of dowry demand

The bench referred to Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which defines dowry as any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with marriage either directly or indirectly. In the instant case however, the Court noted none of the prosecution witnesses have stated in specific and clear terms that demand for the alleged valuables in the form of cash, clothes and gold was made by the accused.

Their only allegation was that the accused was given cash of ₹50,000, a golden ring and a Sherwani. However, the witnesses, being elder brothers of the complainant, had admitted that it is their custom for exchanging the valuables, including cash and golden ornaments between the families of bride and bridegroom. It further observed,

"The prosecution has not placed any other evidence to prove the alleged demand said to have been made by the accused. When undisputedly PW-1 was a Master Graduate in Science and having worldly knowledge and also accessible to Computer and E-mail, somewhere and in some form she could have maintained some records with respect to the alleged demand for additional dowry said to have been made by the accused."

The bench referring to the emails sent by the complainant to her sister said,

"The emails give the details of every trivial matters and trivial allegations, including the one that PW-1 (complainant) was forced to eat with particular breakfast or lunch which was not tasty to her irrespective of the fact of she getting any vomiting. The E-mails also show that she was asked to play cards and sit with her mother-in-law for time-pass in the evening outside their house. In such an event, had there really been a demand for valuables like diamond ear-stud and a cash of ₹10 lakhs, any of the E-mails should have definitely mentioned about the same. However, as observed above, none of the E-mails whispers anything about the same."

Further the bench observed, "The income of accused No.1 while he was staying in United States of America along with PW-1 and his parents was not less than a sum of ₹10 lakhs. In the absence of any of the corroborative evidence and a very weak and self-serving oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4, which too have been denied in their cross-examination, would fail to establish that there was any demand from the accused for dowry or that they have accepted or taken any dowry."

Finally, the Court held that both the trial Court and the Sessions Court got carried away with the self-serving testimony of the complainant by ignoring the fact that the allegations were bald, vague and without any clear details of the alleged several incidents.

Following which the court acquitted the accused.

Case Title: Dr Shashidhar Subbanna v. State of Karnataka

Case no: Criminal Revision petition no 1612/2016 C/W Criminal revision petition 1613/2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 320

Date of Order: 29-07-2022

Appearance: Dr Shashidhara Subbanna party in person; HCGP K Nageshwarappa For R1

Click Here To Read/Download Order