A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale pointed out that Section 498A IPC recognises two distinct forms of cruelty: one involving physical or mental harm in clause (a) and the other involving harassment linked to unlawful demands for property or valuable security in clause (b).

 

"These two provisions are to be read disjunctively, meaning that the presence of a dowry demand is not a prerequisite for establishing cruelty under the Section," the court said.

 

It emphasised that 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 bench allowed the appeal filed by one Aluri Venkata Raman against the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment of July 4, 2023, which quashed her complaint against her husband Aluri Thirupathi Rao, and her mother-in-law.

 

The bench held the high court’s decision to quash the criminal proceedings was flawed and the high court erred in its decision as the trial ought to have been allowed to be carried out.

 

As per the appellant's complaint, her marriage was solemnised on August 21, 2005, and a daughter and a son were born out of wedlock.

 

Upon her complaint on July 17, 2017, an FIR was registered by the Atchampet Police Station, district Guntur under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC against accused persons.

 

It was alleged that at the time of her marriage, her parents gave cash of Rs 1,00,000 and gold ornaments worth Rs 10,00,000. Further, in April 2015, her husband, gave her Rs 40,000 to help her parents financially. However, she gave that amount to one Subhani, who was a tailor in the village stating that he needed it due to treatment of her son. The accused persons allegedly beat her up on August 23 and August 25, 2015, forcing her to return to her maternal home. She claimed she was not allowed to return to the matrimonial home.

 

The high court accepted the submission made by the accused persons that the allegations against them did not constitute the offence under Section 498A IPC since there was no complaint that they harassed the appellant demanding any amount of dowry.

 

Going by the provision, the apex court noted that Section 498A of the IPC was introduced in the year 1983 with the primary objective of protecting married women from cruelty at the hands of their husbands or their in-laws. The Section provides a broad and inclusive definition of "cruelty," encompassing both physical and mental harm to the woman's body or health, court stressed.

 

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 recognises acts that create circumstances leading a woman to the point of suicide as a form of cruelty, the court pointed out.

 

The bench said the definition of "harassment" under the Explanation to Section 498A , IPC is specifically outlined in clause (b), independent of 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. Moreover, these forms of cruelty can co-exist, but the absence of a dowry-related demand does not preclude the application of the section in cases where there is mental or physical harassment unrelated to dowry," the bench said.

 

In interpreting the provision, the court said, it is crucial to consider the broader objective behind its introduction—to safeguard women from all forms of cruelty, regardless of whether the nature of the harm inflicted includes a specific demand for dowry or not.

 

Referring to the statement of objects and reasons for the introduction of this provision, the bench said, "It is relevant to note the last line which explains that the aim for the introduction of Section 498A in the IPC is not only to curb cruelty relating to dowry demand but also cases of cruelty to married woman by their in laws. A reasonable interpretation of this would be that cruelty within this Section goes beyond the definition of cruelty relating just to dowry demand."

 

In U Suvetha Vs State (2009), the bench pointed out, the top court outlined the necessary ingredients required to establish an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, as follows: (a)The woman must be married; (b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and (c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband.

 

"It is clear that an unlawful demand for dowry is not a prerequisite element to constitute "cruelty" under Section 498A IPC. It suffices that the conduct falls within either of the two broad categories outlined in clauses (a) or (b) of the provision, namely, wilful conduct likely to cause grave injury or mental harm (clause a), or harassment intended to coerce the woman or her family to meet any unlawful demand (clause b).Therefore, either form of cruelty, independent of a dowry demand, is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC and make the offence punishable under the law," the bench said.

 

With regard to the impugned judgment, the bench said the high court carefully examined several legal precedents pertaining to the two distinct limbs of Section 498A IPC.

 

The court noted the high court correctly observed that the decisions cited by the counsel for the accused did not establish that the wilful conduct referred to in clause (a) of Section 498A would only be considered as cruelty if it is coupled with a dowry demand or any unlawful demand for property or valuable security, as specified in clause (b). The high court rightly rejected this contention, it said.

 

"However, following this observation, the High Court also noted that the appellant did not specifically allege a demand for property or valuable security, and further concluded that the allegation of the accused physically assaulting the appellant did not amount to "wilful conduct" as envisaged under clause (a) of Section 498A IPC," the bench said.

 

The judgment of the high court primarily focused on the issue of whether a dowry demand is a necessary element for the applicability of Section 498A IPC, court noted. 

 

"The conclusion it arrived at was that the two clauses of the provision must be read disjunctively, thereby confirming that the absence of a dowry demand does not preclude the application of the Section. Despite this, the High Court went on to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused under Section 498A IPC," the bench said.

 

Notably, the bench said, the high court failed to provide adequate reasoning as to why the allegations made by the appellant—specifically, that she had been physically beaten—did not amount to "cruelty" under Section 498A IPC.

 

"The High Court's decision to quash the proceedings appears to have been primarily influenced by the lack of a dowry-related demand in the case, without addressing the broader implications of the allegations of physical abuse, which can fall within the scope of "cruelty" as contemplated by the provision," the court said.

 

The bench held the high court’s decision to quash the criminal proceedings was flawed. The court said the high court erred in its decision, and the trial ought to have been allowed to be carried out.

 

Court allowed the appeal and reinstated the criminal proceedings against the respondents under Section 498A IPC. It directed the trial to proceed as per law.