HC acquits doctor, mother of dowry, cruelty charges; says complainant too sensitive

The Karnataka High Court has acquitted a doctor who was convicted for cruelty under IPC Section 498A for insisting his wife to secure a job as well as H1 VISA so as they could continue to stay in the US. Justice H B Prabhakara Sastry observed that the complainant appears to be too sensitive in magnifying several trivial aspects into a big issue which has ultimately resulted in the case.

The complainant wife had alleged that while the husband insisted her to take up higher study to secure a job in the US, the mother-in-law pestered her to eat more, to have a child and also “pressured her to learn Tamil language”.

The trial court had sentenced one year imprisonment to the doctor and six months imprisonment to his mother for offences under Section 498A and also under Dowry Prohibition (DP) Act. In 2016, a City Civil and Sessions Court had confirmed the conviction. The doctor and his mother moved the HC challenging the order.

The high court observed that the complainant had been sending e-mails to her younger sister from the US explaining several incidents of harassment. However, during the trial, while these emails were a part of the record, the younger sister was not examined. Justice Prabhakara noted that both the trial court and the sessions courts have got carried away with the self-serving testimony of the complainant as well as her relatives.

“Both the complainant and accused No.1 (the husband) appear to have given undue importance for their living abroad. It also appears that the sole aim in his life was living in the United States of America and earning money, in which regard, it appears that he was demanding the complainant to secure a job and acquire H1 VISA, so that, in case of expiry/lapse or non renewal of his VISA, he could have still continued to stay in the US on his wife’s VISA. However, as analysed above, the same cannot be considered as a cruelty attracting Section 498A of IPC,” the court said.

The court acquitted the husband and his mother and observed that insistence of having a child is an issue between the wife and the husband, who did not want to have a baby till he settled down in the US.

“A talk between husband and wife as to when they should have a child or what is the view of a spouse about having a child and what would be the right time for them is a common talk between the spouses. As such, merely because the husband expresses his view, the same cannot be considered either as harassment or as a cruelty,” the court said.