'Why do boys marry girls then insult them and their family?': Supreme Court on dowry death case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on the normalisation of dowry harassment, asking why boys marry girls only to insult them and their families.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan made the strong observations while dismissing an appeal by the husband’s younger brother.

The husband was convicted in a dowry death case involving the suicide of a woman at her matrimonial home in Chhattisgarh.

“Why do boys marry girls and then insult them and their families? Let a message go out that they cannot continue insulting the bride and her family,” Justice Nagarathna remarked.

The bench highlighted the disturbing pattern of financial pressure and harassment in matrimonial homes.

“The attempt is to squeeze the bride and her family,” Justice Nagarathna observed, adding that the girl’s family was pleading to save their daughter but was instead branded as “beggars” who could not pay.

Justice Bhuyan expressed concern over such behaviour persisting even among educated families.

“These are educated people,” he noted.

The remarks by the top court are being seen as a strong judicial message against the continuing menace of dowry-related harassment and the casual cruelty often inflicted on brides and their families.

The case dates back to 2010 when the woman died by suicide within three years of marriage. The prosecution alleged continuous mental and physical harassment by her husband and in-laws over dowry demands, including cash and a car.

The trial court convicted the accused, a finding upheld by the Chhattisgarh High Court. The husband’s younger brother then approached the Supreme Court challenging his conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (cruelty by husband or his relatives).

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the ingredients of the offence were not made out.

However, the bench was not convinced.

Justice Nagarathna told the lawyer, “You should be happy that it is only 498A and only three years.”

The court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal.