The Supreme Court recently ordered a man who ended his marriage with his wife over her inability to fulfill his demands for gold to pay ₹3 lakh in compensation to her.
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and SV Bhatti upheld the conviction of M Venkateswaran under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The conviction stemmed from his refusal to cooperate with the wedding reception after the bride's family rejected his demand for 100 sovereigns of gold as dowry.
The Supreme Court was hearing a plea challenging a 2022 order of the Madras High Court that upheld the conviction of M Venkateswaran under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The case arose from allegations made by Venkateswaran's wife, Sridevi, who accused him of dowry harassment and mental cruelty during their brief marriage, which lasted only three days. It was alleged that Venkateswaran refused to cooperate during the wedding reception after the bride's family did not meet his dowry demands.
The marriage, solemnized in 2006, ended shortly afterward, prompting a 2007 complaint against Venkateswaran, his late father, and his brother. The charges included Section 498A IPC (cruelty to wife), Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust), Section 420 IPC (cheating), Section 506(2) IPC (criminal intimidation), and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (penalty for demanding dowry).
The trial court acquitted Venkateswaran's brother of all charges and acquitted the appellant of charges under Section 420 IPC (cheating) and Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation). However, the court convicted him under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He was sentenced to three years in jail under Section 498A IPC and one year under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Dissatisfied with the trial court's verdict, Venkateswaran appealed in 2017 before the Additional Sessions Judge, who set aside the conviction under Section 406 IPC but upheld the remaining convictions. In 2022, the Madras High Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence under Section 498A IPC to two years while retaining the one-year sentence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Venkateswaran then approached the Supreme Court. After reviewing the evidence, which included testimony from 15 witnesses corroborating the allegations of dowry harassment, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction. However, the Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone.
Taking into account the 19 years of prolonged litigation, the fact that both parties had moved on with their lives, and the appellant's willingness to contribute to community service, the Supreme Court directed Venkateswaran to pay ₹3,00,000 as compensation to the complainant within four weeks.
"Admittedly, the incident pertains to the year 2006. The marriage was solemnized on 31.03.2006 and the couple lived together exactly for three days. As noticed .from the High Court order, the de facto complainant is married and settled abroad. The case has been prolonged for a period of nearly 19 years. Both the appellant and PW-4 have moved on in life," the Court said.
The Court further clarified that failure to deposit the compensation would result in the dismissal of the appeal and enforcement of the remaining sentence.
of Justices KV Viswanathan and SV Bhatti upheld the conviction of M Venkateswaran under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The conviction stemmed from his refusal to cooperate with the wedding reception after the bride's family rejected his demand for 100 sovereigns of gold as dowry.
"We are satisfied that the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC are fully satisfied and that the appellant subjected PW- 4 (wife) to harassment with a view to coercing her and her mother to meet the unlawful demand for the gold sovereigns and continued to harass her when PW-4 and her relatives failed to meet such demand. The ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act are clearly made out," the January 24 order said.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy