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 Court held.
The Supreme Court has affirmed that a dowry demand is not a necessary condition for invoking the offence of cruelty against a wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale emphasized that the essential component of the offence under Section 498A IPC is cruelty itself, rather than the existence of a dowry demand.
Therefore, the Court ruled that even in the absence of an explicit dowry demand, the provision remains applicable if instances of physical abuse or mental harassment are established.
“The presence of a dowry demand is not a prerequisite for establishing cruelty under the Section,” the order dated December 12, 2024 said.
Presence of a dowry demand is not a prerequisite for establishing cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
Supreme Court
The Court was considering an appeal against the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision to dismiss proceedings under Section 498A against Aluri Thirupathi Rao.
Rao was accused of physically assaulting his wife and compelling her to leave the matrimonial home. Despite several attempts to return, she was allegedly denied re-entry.
Following an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against Rao and his mother. They subsequently moved the High Court, which exercised its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash the case.
The High Court seemed to accept the accused’s argument that the allegations did not amount to an offence under Section 498A IPC, as there was no assertion of dowry-related harassment.
The wife later challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the accused contended that the explanation to Section 498A IPC mandates a dowry demand for an act to be classified as “cruelty” under the provision.
However, the Court analyzed Section 498A and observed that it offers a broad and inclusive definition of ‘cruelty,’ covering both physical and mental harm to the woman’s body or well-being.
“In addition, it covers acts of harassment designed to coerce the woman or her family into fulfilling unlawful demands for property or valuable security, including demands related to dowry. Notably, the provision also recognizes acts that create circumstances leading a woman to the point of suicide as a form of cruelty,” the Court said.
The Court further observed that Section 498A IPC outlines two distinct forms of cruelty: Clause (a) of the explanation deals with physical or mental harm, while Clause (b) relates to harassment arising from unlawful demands for property or valuable security.
Emphasizing the need for separate interpretation of these provisions, the Court affirmed that a dowry demand is not a necessary condition for proving cruelty under this Section.
“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 order said.
Consequently, the Court overturned the High Court’s order and restored the criminal proceedings under Section 498A.
