Perpetuating 'Endurance' In Matrimonial Homes Emboldens Abusers; Leads To Tragic Losses: Delhi HC While Denying Bail To Husband In Dowry Death Case

The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man accused of murdering his wife in a dowry death case, emphasizing that societal pressure forcing women to endure suffering in their matrimonial homes emboldens perpetrators and perpetuates such offenses.

The Single-Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated that the mindset that encourages women to continue enduring abuse as the “right” thing to do after marriage is often exploited by offenders, including husbands who resort to extreme violence.

“Judgments in such cases serve as a medium to highlight to society how young lives can be tragically lost under these circumstances, and it may not always be advisable to convey message to the victim of dowry harassment and threats who are visibly beaten and battered by their husbands that they should continue to endure suffering in their matrimonial homes as it is the “right” thing to do after marriage. This mindset emboldens and is exploited by perpetrators, including a husband who kills his wife, exploiting the situation that the victim wife has nowhere else to go, as her parental family is also advising her to live with him despite the torture and physical abuse," the Court said.

Facts of the Case

The case pertains to the alleged murder of a woman by her husband, registered under Sections 302, 304B, 498A, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, following her death two months after their marriage in 2021.

Court's Reasoning

The Court noted that despite nearly four decades of Section 304B IPC being in force, dowry-related harassment, torture, and killings remain prevalent. Families of victims frequently reveal in statements that their daughters reported abuse and threats over dowry demands but were often advised to continue living in their matrimonial homes due to societal stigma.

On the cases of dowry, death, and murder, like the present one, the Court said, "Often reveal a distressing pattern. Families of the victims frequently mention in their statements before the Court and the police that their daughters had complained about being tortured and feared for their lives due to unmet dowry demands. However, due to societal pressure and the fear of social stigma, these families often suggest or compel their daughters to continue to try and adjust and live in their matrimonial homes, where they are subsequently killed or driven to suicide."

The Single Bench rejected the husband’s argument that there was no incriminating evidence regarding dowry demands and dismissed his claim that he killed his wife in a drunken state during an altercation. “To trivialize a case of murder on the ground that the accused and the victim, being husband and wife, had an altercation, and therefore, the husband being drunk at the spur of the moment killed her, is not only unacceptable but also shocking,” the Court said.

"The fact that the present accused is the husband of the victim, and has allegedly killed her, in a drunken state and allegedly at the spur of the moment, in this Court‟s opinion does not mitigate the seriousness of the offence but rather multiplies it. In this Court‟s opinion, the victim, being his wife, could not have thought that the person she had been married to, will kill her brutally after consuming liquor, just because her parents did not agree to sell their land—a land which was theirs and not of the accused, which he was demanding as a matter of right," the Court added.

The Court further stated, "The law does not give right to any person to kill another, and to try to carve out a separate category and plea to consider a case on a different footing, in case a husband kills his wife since he had consumed alcohol and there was allegedly an altercation, will be against the principles of criminal jurisprudence."

Conclusion

"Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that the witnesses examined so far before the learned Trial Court have supported the prosecution‟s case, and taking into account the submissions made before this Court, the post-mortem report of the victim, and for the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs, coupled with the gravity of the offence, no ground for grant of bail is made out at this stage. Accordingly, the present bail application along with the pending application stands dismissed," the Court ordered.

Cause Title: Kuldeep Singh v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi [Neutral Citation No. 2025:DHC:230]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Pramod, Ajay Kumar Yadav, Piyushi Garg

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Manoj Pant

Click here to read/download the Judgment