The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently emphasized that subjecting a married woman to reside in her parental home due to insufficient dowry would constitute mental cruelty.

Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, presiding over a single-judge bench, further stated that such actions would constitute a continuous offense, thereby providing the aggrieved woman with a fresh cause of action each day thereafter.

Before reaching its decision, the court referred to the cases of Rupali Devi v. State of UP (2019) and Amar Singh v. Smt. Vimla (2021). The court then proceeded to assert that each day following the woman's eviction from her matrimonial home constitutes a new cause of action due to the mental cruelty she endures. Consequently, the filing of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) is not barred by limitation.

Despite the alleged three-year gap since the separation, the wife filed the First Information Report (F.I.R.) in 2021, asserting that her husband, mother-in-law, and other relatives had subjected her to various forms of torture, including physical and mental cruelty, due to insufficient dowry. She claimed that her husband and mother-in-law had physically assaulted her, demanding an additional Rs 10 lakhs.

The court opined that the allegations of physical cruelty inflicted by the mother-in-law are substantial enough to warrant prosecution for the offenses outlined in the First Information Report (F.I.R.). Additionally, the court asserted that there is adequate evidence against the husband to justify prosecution.

The court observed that the timing of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) being filed after the initiation of divorce proceedings, purportedly as a retaliatory measure, cannot serve as grounds to dismiss the F.I.R. registered against the husband and mother-in-law under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 294, 323, and 506/34 of the IPC, along with Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The court reiterated the well-established principle that the mere delay in filing the First Information Report (F.I.R.) cannot be sufficient grounds to dismiss criminal proceedings. Additionally, it noted that the marriage between the wife and the first petitioner took place in 2017, and they have a two-year-old daughter from the union.

The court held that the allegations against other relatives lacked specificity, leading to the quashing of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) filed against them by the High Court. Furthermore, the court expressed disapproval of the growing trend in society to involve the close relatives of the husband excessively, presumably to exert pressure on the husband.

For the petitioners, Advocate Vikas Mishra represented the case, while Advocate Dilip Parihar appeared for Respondent 1. Advocate Ajay Sen represented Respondent No. 2, the complainant.