Delhi High Court's BIG Ruling: Merely Crying Of Woman Cannot Make Out Case Of Dowry Harassment

(MENAFN- Live Mint) The mere fact that a woman was crying cannot make a case of dowry harassment, said the Delhi High Court while dismissing a petition against the discharge of a husband and his family from charges of cruelty and dowry harassment.

According to the prosecution, the woman, married in December 2010, faced harassment and dowry demands from her husband and in-laws .

Her family claimed that they spent nearly ₹4 lakh on the wedding, alleging that later demands for a motorcycle, cash, and a gold bracelet were made by the husband and in-laws.

Also Read | Merchant Navy officer's wife found dead in Lucknow: Family alleges murder

The woman, a mother of two daughters, died on 31 March 2014.

'Merely crying of woman cannot...'

“Statement of the sister of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she also stated that on the occasion of Holi, she had called her sister and found her crying. However, merely because the deceased was crying, cannot per se make out any case of dowry harassment,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

She also observed that the father of the woman neither mentioned specific incidents nor did he provide proof of giving money to the accused.

“Such bald assertions, in the given situation, cannot be held to be even making out a prima facie case of harassment,” the judge added.

Also Read | Woman regrets filing false dowry case against husband; netizens react Death due to natural causes

The trial court had discharged the accused noting that the death took place due to pneumonia , a natural cause.

The high court also emphasised that the post-mortem report attributed the cause of death to pneumonia, not cruelty.

Also Read | Kerala woman dies in Sharjah; family alleges husband killed her over dowry

“In the present case, to bring in the clause of cruelty leading to the death of the woman, it may be noted that the deceased had died not because of any act of cruelty but for natural reasons... Therefore, Clause (a) to the Explanation annexed to Section 498A IPC is not attracted,” the Court said.

MENAFN17082025007365015876ID1109938205