LI Network
Published on: 09 September 2023 at 16:30 IST
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a husband’s extramarital affair or gambling habits cannot be used as a basis to charge him under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with dowry-related deaths of wives [Parul V. NCT Of Delhi].
The court made this determination while granting bail to a man whose wife died by suicide in August 2022, within two years of their marriage.
The court emphasized that allegations of the husband’s extramarital affair or involvement in betting should not lead to implicating him under Section 304B IPC.
Justice Vikas Mahajan also pointed out that to invoke Section 304B, harassment must occur shortly before the woman’s death and must be connected to a dowry demand.
“The term ‘soon before death’ is relative and can vary from case to case. The key requirement is that the dowry demand should not be a distant event but a continuing cause for the married woman’s death under Section 304B IPC,” the court clarified.
In the background of the case, it was alleged that the bail applicant had falsely claimed to be a law graduate and practicing lawyer when he married the deceased woman. Subsequently, the wife discovered his alleged extramarital affair and gambling habits, which strained their relationship, leading to her filing various legal cases, including a divorce petition.
The court was informed that the couple had been living apart since April 19, 2021, and the woman died by suicide on August 7, 2022. Following her death, the woman’s father lodged a criminal complaint, asserting it was a case of dowry death. He alleged that the accused had met his daughter a day before her suicide and had threatened her, prompting her to take her own life.
However, the court noted that the father did not claim that the accused had demanded dowry during his meeting with the woman the day before her suicide. Furthermore, the court observed that the allegations of dowry demand in the complaint related to a period before April 19, 2021, when the woman left her marital home.
Additionally, the State acknowledged that there was no evidence to suggest that the accused had made dowry demands after the woman had left her marital home. Taking all these factors into account, the court granted bail to the accused, as it was unclear whether the woman had experienced dowry-related harassment shortly before her death.
Importantly, the court was informed that the deceased woman had a history of anxiety and depression. The court noted, “It prima facie appears that the deceased was under treatment for anxiety and depression and the demand of dowry was not stated to be a stressor or trigger for her said medical issues, as shared by her with the treating doctor.”
Consequently, the court determined that the accused should be presumed innocent at this stage of the case, considering the potential protracted nature of the criminal trial and the lack of substantial evidence connecting him to dowry-related harassment. Therefore, the court allowed the accused’s plea for bail.