Supreme Court Highlights Growing Trend Of Dowry Victims Arraigning Relatives Of Husband residing at distant place away from victim

 Insofar as Appellant Nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against Appellant Nos. 2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate Appellant No. 1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 and their children. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively. {Para 24}

25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, Appellant Nos. 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant No. 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2137 of 2025 

Decided On: 23.04.2025

Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 562: MANU/SC/0546/2025

Print Page

Whether husband and his relatives can be convicted for abetment of suicide of wife if they are acquitted in offence U/S 498A of IPC?

This Court in an illuminating judgment in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh MANU/SC/0654/2001 : (2001) 9 SCC 618 has stated the law as follows:

This provision was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second) Amendment Act, 1983 with effect from 26-12-1983 to meet a social demand to resolve difficulty of proof where helpless married women were eliminated by being forced to commit suicide by the husband or in-laws and incriminating evidence was usually available within the four corners of the matrimonial home and hence was not available to anyone outside the occupants of the house. However, still it cannot be lost sight of that the presumption is intended to operate against the Accused in the field of criminal law. Before the presumption may be raised, the foundation thereof must exist. A bare reading of Section 113-A shows that to attract applicability of Section 113-A, it must be shown that (i) the woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, (iii) the husband or his relatives, who are charged had subjected her to cruelty. On existence and availability of the abovesaid circumstances, the court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. Parliament has chosen to sound a note of caution. Firstly, the presumption is not mandatory; it is only permissive as the employment of expression "may presume" suggests. Secondly, the existence and availability of the abovesaid three circumstances shall not, like a formula, enable the presumption being drawn; before the presumption may be drawn the court shall have to have regard to "all the other circumstances of the case". A consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of the court to abstain from drawing the presumption. The expression-"the other circumstances of the case" used in Section 113-A suggests the need to reach a cause-and-effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the least, the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. In spite of a presumption having been raised the evidence adduced in defence or the facts and circumstances otherwise available on record may destroy the presumption. The phrase "may presume" used in Section 113-A is defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, which says-"Whenever it is provided by this Act that the court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it.

8. We find that having absolved the Appellants of the charge of cruelty, which is the most basic ingredient for the offence made out Under Section 498A, the third ingredient for application of Section 113A is missing, namely, that the relatives i.e., the mother-in-law and father-in-law who are charged Under Section 306 had subjected the victim to cruelty. No doubt, in the facts of this case, it has been concurrently found that the in-laws did harass her, but harassment is something of a lesser degree than cruelty. Also, we find on the facts, taken as a whole, that assuming the presumption Under Section 113A would apply, it has been fully rebutted, for the reason that there is no link or intention on the part of the in-laws to assist the victim to commit suicide.

9. In the absence of this vital link, the mere fact that there is a finding of harassment would not lead to the conclusion that there is "abetment of suicide".

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 790/2017 

Decided On: 24.04.2017

 Heera Lal  Vs.  State of Rajasthan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rohinton Fali Nariman and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.

Print Page

Whether wife can file domestic violence proceeding against one and all relatives of husband even without any evidence of abuse against them?

 In the petition filed by respondent no.2, apart from arraying her husband and her parents-in-law as parties to the proceedings, has included all and sundry, as respondents. To say the least, she has even alleged certain actions said to have been done by the tenant whose name is not even known to her.

4. In a matter of this nature, we are of the opinion that the High Court at least should have directed that the petition filed by respondent no.2 be confined to her husband as also her parents-in-law and should not have allowed the impleadment of respondent nos.4 to 12.

Supreme Court of India

Ashish Dixit & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 7 January, 2013

Bench: H.L. Dattu, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad

Print Page

Whether former wife is relative of husband and can be prosecuted for offence U/S 498A of IPC?

 It appears from the materials on record that the
respondent No.2 got married with one Rakeshkumar Bhavsar
in the year 1995. In the wedlock, two children were born. On
29.06.2001, Rakeshkumar Bhavsar passed away. After about
nine years from the date of the demise of Rakeshkumar
Bhavsar, the respondent No.2 got married with one
Bhavinbhai, i..e, the original accused No.1. Bhavinbhai was
married to the applicant herein. The marriage of Bhavinbhai
with the applicant was dissolved in a customary manner. It
appears that Bhavinbhai, after getting married to the
respondent No.2 herein, went back to his divorced wife, i.e.,
the applicant herein. This led to the matrimonial disputes
between the respondent No.2 and her husband, namely,
Bhavinbhai-original accused No.1. In the dispute between the
husband and wife, the applicant, who happens to be the first
wife of Bhavinbhai, has been arraigned as an accused. I am
informed that the applicant herein has also now got married
for the second time.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and having considered the materials on record, I am of
the view that even if the entire case of the prosecution is
believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to
constitute the offence of cruelty within the meaning of section
498-A of the IPC are spelt out so far as the applicant herein is
concerned. Let us assume for the moment that the husband of
the respondent No.2 went back to his first wife, i.e., the
applicant herein, the fact remains that as the marriage was
dissolved, the applicant herein would not fall within the ambit
of “the relative of the husband”. Even otherwise, there is no
case worth the name against the applicant. The applicant may
be the cause for the matrimonial disputes between the
husband and wife, bu for that, she cannot be prosecuted for
the offence under section 498-A of the IPC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 19574 of 2015

HONEYBEN ASHOKBHAI PATEL. Vs STATE OF GUJARAT 
CORAM:  MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 30/11/2017

Print Page

Whether relatives of husband can be convicted on basis of omnibus allegation made by family members of deceased?

The learned Judge of the Trial Court after appreciating the

evidence on record has convicted Anil @ Vikki, who is the husband

of the deceased whereas all the accused persons (respondents herein)

have been acquitted. The acquittal is based on the scrutiny of

evidence available on record. The learned Judge of the Trial Court

in para 60 of the judgment has rightly held that the demand of dowry 

is not proved so far as the present respondents are concerned and the

learned Judge has also rightly held that the accused Mamta and Dr.

Harishchand, who are sister and brother-in-law of the husband

respectively are residing separately at Jhansi whereas accused Nisha

and Manju, who are the sisters-in-law of the deceased, accused Raja

@ Sharad (Jeth of deceased) and accused Shanti Devi (mother-inlaw

of the deceased) cannot be said to be involved in the demand of

dowry and it is also rightly held by the learned Judge that it is not

proved that only because of demand of Rs.5.00 lacs as dowry the

deceased has committed suicide. Apart from that, the record also

reveals that the non-applicant No.5 Manju (sister-in-law of the

deceased) is a resident of Lucknow, who got married around 20

years ago. Similarly, non-applicant No.6 Nisha (sister-in-law of the

deceased) is also married and living separately with her husband at

Bangalore. It is pertinent to note that there is a suicide note proved

as Article Q1/Ex.P/13 and also the register of the deceased written

in her own handwriting seized by the police from the room of the

deceased, which are exhibited as Ex.P/13 & Ex.P/15 and proved by

Gautam Solanki (PW-13), C.S.P. the investigating Officer, who has

seized the aforesaid suicide note vide seizure memo Ex.P/11 and as

per para 26 of the judgment, the handwriting expert's report the

same is not negative.

7. The learned Judge of the Trial Court has rightly relied upon

the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand

Sarda vs State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in the case of death of

a woman in her matrimonial home, it is a common feature that the

incident is exaggerated by the relatives of the deceased and it is a

common practice to implicate all the members of the family of the

husband.  

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH,

JABALPUR

DIVISION BENCH: Mr. Justice S.K.Gangele

 &  Mr. Justice Subodh Abhyankar, JJ.

MISC CRIMINAL CASE NO. 15804 OF 2016

Vinod Kumar Sen Vs.  Smt Shanti Devi 

Dated: 3rd day of January, 2017.

Citation: 2017 CRLJ(NOC)89 MP

Print Page

Whether relatives of husband can be prosecuted U/S 498A on basis of vague allegation?

 The Court has to adopt pragmatic view and when
a girl dies an unnatural death, allegation of demand
of dowry or harassment which follows cannot be
weighed in golden scales. At the same time, omnibus
allegation against all family members particularly
against brothers and sisters and other relatives do
not stand on same footing as husband and parents.
In such case, apart from general allegation of
demand of dowry, the court has to be satisfied that
harassment was also caused by all the named
members.”
The Supreme Court in the case of Chandralekha & Ors.
v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2013 (1) UC 155
has held as under:-
“8. We must, at the outset, state that the High 
Court’s view on jurisdiction meets with our approval
and we confirm the view. However, after a careful
perusal of the FIR and after taking into consideration
the attendant circumstances, we are of the opinion
that the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it
relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be
quashed. The allegations are extremely general in
nature. No specific role is attributed to each of the
appellants. Respondent 2 has stated that after the
marriage, she resided with her husband at
Ahmedabad. It is not clear whether appellants 1, 2
and 3 were residing with them at Ahmedabad. The
marriage took place on 9/7/2002 and respondent 2
left her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 i.e. within a
period of seven months. Thereafter, respondent 
took no steps to file any complaint against the
appellants. Six years after she left the house, the
present FIR is lodged making extremely vague and
general allegations against appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is
important to remember that appellant 2 is a married
sister-in-law. In our opinion, such extra ordinary
delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the
truthfulness of allegations made by respondent 2
against appellants 1, 2 and 3, which are, in any case,
general in nature. We have no doubt that by making
such reckless and vague allegations, respondent 2
has tried to rope them in this case along with her
husband. We are of the confirmed opinion that
continuation of the criminal proceedings against
appellants 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to this FIR is an abuse
of process of law. In the interest of justice, therefore,
the FIR deserves to be quashed insofar as it relates
to appellants 1, 2 and 3.”
If the facts of the present case are considered in the light
of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of
Kansraj (Supra), Monju Roy (Supra), Geeta Mehrotara
(Supra), Preeti Gupta (Supra) and Chandralekha (Supra)
it would be clear that only vague and general allegations have
been made against the applicants. It is the specific case of
the applicants that they are residing at different and distant
places. This fact has not been rebutted by the respondent
no.2 by filing reply to this petition. The general allegations
which have been levelled by the complainant/respondent no. 2
are that after marriage for few months, she was kept properly 
and thereafter, her in-laws including the applicants started
demanding Rs. 50,000/- and thereafter they started
demanding Rs. 2 lacs and a motor cycle. It is alleged that
when She gave birth to her girl child, nobody came to see her.
Her mother spent Rs. 4 lacs for the treatment of her child
which were saved by her mother for the marriage of her
younger sister. When she went back to her matrimonial
house, again all her in-laws demanded Rs. 2 lacs and a motor
cycle and said that either She should bring the amount and a
motor cycle or else she should give divorce to Saurabh. She
further admitted in her case diary statement that the
applicants no.1 and 2 are residing in Ahmedabad and went on
to allege that her husband has illicit relations with the
applicant no.2. As she had caught both of them red handed,
therefore, earlier She was beaten for this reason. She further
alleged that the applicant no.2 is a lady of loose character and
her father-in-law has also illicit relations with her. On 26-7-
2015 while She was doing her household work in her
matrimonial house, then her husband again demanded Rs. 2
lacs and a motor cycle and when She refused to fulfill his
demand then She was beaten by her husband by means of a
lathi and all of her in-laws slapped her. If the case diary
statement of the complainant/respondent no.2 is seen then it
would be clear that not only she made vague allegations
against the applicants, but She went to the extent
assassinating the character of applicant no.2 by saying that
She is of a loose character and has illicit relations with her
husband and her father-in-law, whereas there is no such
allegation in the F.I.R. The father and mother of the
respondent no.2 have not alleged that the applicant no.2 is of
a loose character having illicit relations with the husband and
father-in-law of the respondent no.2. Thus, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the only intention of the respondent no.2 
is to some how prosecute as well as to defame them.
Therefore, this is a clear case of over implication of the near
relatives of husband of the respondent no.2.
Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that even if
the entire allegations are considered on their face value, then
there is no specific allegation against any of the applicants and
they have been implicated merely because they happens to be
the near relatives of the husband of the respondent no.2 and
therefore, under these circumstances, it would not be proper
to compel the applicants to face the agony of criminal
prosecution.
Accordingly, the charge sheet and the criminal
prosecution of the applicants in criminal case No. 2338 of
2015 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Morena is hereby
quashed.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH
PRESENT:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
Misc. Criminal Case No. 3658 OF 2016
Sandeep Singh Bais @ Anshu & Ors.Vs State
of M. P. & Anr.

Dated:09/03/2017

Print Page

When prosecution against relatives of Husband can be quashed under Dowry prohibition Act?

Giving of dowry and the traditional presents at or about

the time of wedding does not in any way raise a presumption that

such a property was thereby entrusted and put under the dominion

of the parents-in-law of the bride or other close relations so as to

attract ingredients of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As

noticed earlier, after marriage, Syamala Rani and first appellant

were living in Bangalore at their matrimonial house. In respect of

‘stridhana articles’ given to the bride, one has to take into

consideration the common practice that these articles are sent

along with the bride to her matrimonial house. It is a matter of
common knowledge that these articles are kept by the woman in
connection with whose marriage it was given and used by her in
her matrimonial house when the appellants 2 to 6 have been
residing separately in Vizianagaram, it cannot be said that the
dowry was given to them and that they were duty bound to return
the same to Syamala Rani. Facts and circumstances of the case
and also the uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint do
not constitute an offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act against appellants 2 to 6 and there is no sufficient ground for

proceeding against the appellants 2 to 6. Be it noted that

appellants 2 to 6 are also facing criminal prosecution for the

offence under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and under Sections 3 and 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Even though the criminal proceeding

under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is independent of the

criminal prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act, in the absence of specific allegations of entrustment of the

dowry amount and articles to appellants 2 to 6, in our view,

continuation of the criminal proceeding against appellants 2 to 6 is

not just and proper and the same is liable to be quashed.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9344 of 2014)
BOBBILI RAMAKRISHNA RAJU YADAV & ORS. 
V
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP.
Dated;January 19, 2016

Print Page

Whether wife can file Civil Suit for recovery of stridhan?

A. Family Courts Act (66 of 1984), Sections 7, 8 & 24--Suit for return of Stridhan--Suit for return of Stridhan without there being any relief as envisaged under Section 9, 10 or 13 of Hindu Marriage Act is maintainable.

5. Family Courts Act (66 of 1984), Sections 7, & 24--Suit for return of Stridhan--Maintainability of suit against relatives of husband Suit for return of stridhan filed against husband and in laws--Family Court has jurisdiction to consider the suit of the respondent in respect of return of stridhan and was not required to file two separate suits, i.e. one against her husband before Family Court and another before Ordinary Civil Court against, her in-laws.

Equivalent Citation: AIR2012MP142, I(2013)DMC268, ILR[2012]MP974

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR

F.A. No. 405/2011

Decided On: 06.03.2012

Om Prakash Tiwary Vs. Smt. Neetu Tiwary

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Mr. Justice K.K. Lahoti & Mrs. Justice Vimla Jain

Print Page

When proceeding under domestic violence Act can be dismissed against relatives of Husband?

In the instant case, on the same allegations, the petitioner got filed a case under Section 498-A IPC against the respondents/A2 to A6. If technically viewed, pendency of a case under Section 498-A IPC is not bar for initiation of proceedings under the PWDV Act. But the Court is under a duty to examine and find out whether the complainant has been trying to repeatedly involve all the relatives of her husband in criminal cases. In the instant case, by making the very same general and sweeping allegations, the petitioner get the respondents 2 to 6 involved in the domestic violence case. From the nature of the allegations levelled against the respondents 2 to 6, the intention of the complainant seems to be that she wanted to involve all the relatives of her husband in the domestic violence case. By examining the facts of the present case, in the light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the above referred judgments, I am thoroughly convinced that the respondents 2 to 6 were involved in the DVC on account of the vindictive attitude of the petitioner/wife, continuing them in the DVC will not yield any useful purpose except causing harassment and hardship to them. Both the Courts below, therefore, are perfectly justified in taking the view that the cognizance of the case shall not been taken against the respondents 2 to 6/A2 to A6. I do not think that the dismissal of DVC against the respondents 2 to 6 resulted in any grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of Court. Though, this Court has power to entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order passed in revisional jurisdiction, this is not a fit case wherein the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised in favour of the petitioner.

Andhra High Court

Smt. Buravilli Siva Madhuri vs Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata ... on 25 September, 2012

Citation: 2013(1)ALD(Cri)634, 2013(2)ALT(Cri)216, 2013CriLJ4653

Print Page

Whether adverse inference can be drawn against husband when he has failed to examine his close relatives?

No explanation has been advanced by the husband as to why his near and dear relatives have not been examined by him to corroborate and substantiate the aforesaid allegation of cruelty. From the evidence on record, it transpires that the husband has good relation with younger brother Kajal Bhowal, Dr. Chittaranjan Das - the husband of his sister, Dr. Girin Das - the elder brother of the brother-in-law of husband among others who attended his brain tumor operation at Chennai. The aforesaid relatives being close to the husband and having no enmity with them are vital witnesses to prove the alleged cruelty of his wife. If the wife is guilty for the alleged cruelty they must have been examined by the husband. It is most surprising to note that these vital witnesses have been withheld by the husband. No cogent explanation is forthcoming from the end of the husband for their non-examination. Even the sisters of the husband have not been examined. The husband in his cross- examination (at Page 257 of Paper Book) has admitted that he has no quarrel with his brother Kajal and (at Page 253 of Paper Book) he has stated that his brother Kajal was present at Chennai at the time of brain tumor operation. Therefore, non-examination of these vital witnesses by the husband to establish his allegation of cruelty invites us to draw adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. Had they been examined the truth would have been revealed.

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)

With F.A. No. 248 Of 2013 

Smt.Bipasha Bhowal vs Sri Biplab Bhowal For The on 15 May, 2014

Author: Tapan Kumar Dutt

Print Page