Dowry Demand Not Necessary For S.498A IPC Offence If Physical Or Mental Cruelty To Wife Is Established : Supreme Court

The Court observed that though these two forms of cruelty can co-exist, the absence of dowry demand does not exclude the application of this Section in cases of mental or physical harassment.

“The absence of an explicit dowry demand does not negate the applicability of the provision where acts of physical violence and mental distress have been demonstrated. The core of the offence under Section 498A IPC lies in the act of cruelty and does not purely revolve around the demand for dowry.”

For reference, the concerned portion of the Section reads as:

“Explanation: For the purposes of this section, "cruelty” means— (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

The Court said that these two clauses are to be read disjunctively, meaning that the presence of a dowry demand is not essential for establishing cruelty. Reliance was placed on U.Suvetha v. State., (2009)6 SCC 757, wherein the Court broke down the necessary ingredients of this provision to: the woman must be married and subjected to cruelty either by her husband or his relative.

Therefore, either form of cruelty, independent of dowry demand, is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC and make the offence punishable under the law., the Court said.

In the present case, the appellant(wife) had alleged that her husband and his relatives had beaten her. Accordingly, criminal proceedings were initiated against the husband and mother-in-law under Section 498A. Challenging this, the accused persons approached the High Court to quash the proceedings. Allowing the plea, the High Court observed that there was no complaint about the demand for dowry. Aggrieved by this, the appellant reached the Apex Court.

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, at the outset, discussed the objective behind the introduction of this Section. The Court said that the primary objective was to protect married women from cruelty, be it physical or mental. In addition, the Section also covers unlawful demands for property or valuable security. Thus, the broader objective of this provision is to safeguard women from all forms of cruelty, irrespective that the harassment was linked to dowry demand.

“The definition of "harassment" under the Explanation to Section 498A is specifically outlined in clause (b), independent to the “wilful conduct” described in clause (a), thus necessitating a separate reading of the two. It is significant to note that the inclusion of the word “or” at the end of clause (a) clearly indicates that "cruelty" for the purposes of Section 498A can either involve wilful conduct that causes mental or physical harm or harassment related to unlawful demands, such as dowry.,” the Court observed.

Apart from this, the Court also discussed the statement of objects and reasons. The same stated: “It is therefore proposed to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of Dowry Death but also cases of cruelty to married woman by their in laws.” A reasonable interpretation of this would be that cruelty within this section goes beyond the definition of cruelty relating just to dowry demand., the Court said.

Adverting to the facts of the case, the Court said that the High Court failed to provide adequate reasoning as to why the appellant's allegations of being beaten did not amount to cruelty. Taking a cue from this, the Court opined that the High Court's decision to quash the proceedings was flawed. Rejecting the respondent's contention, the Court said that the allegations made would fall within the scope of cruelty.

In view of this, the Court, while setting aside the impugned judgment, reinstated the criminal proceedings against the respondents under Section 498A IPC.

Case Name: ALURI VENKATA RAMANA v. ALURI THIRUPATHI RAO & ORS., ARISING FROM SLP(CRL.) NO(S).9243 OF 2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 228

Click here to read/ download the order