SC Directs Husband To Pay Rs. 3 Lakh In Compensation To Wife For Subjecting Her To Harassment By Making Unlawful Dowry Demand
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The Supreme Court has directed a husband to pay Rs. 3 Lakhs in compensation to the wife for subjecting her to harassment by making unlawful demands for gold sovereigns in dowry.
The Court partly allowed the Appeal by the husband (Appellant) by confirming his conviction under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act), but modified the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. The Madras High Court too had confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence from three years of imprisonment to two years.
A Bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice SVN Bhatti held, “We hold that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act is sustained. The sentence imposed is set aside and substituted with that of the period already undergone and we further direct that the appellant shall deposit in the 4 th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai (the Trial Court) a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs) within a period of four weeks, which shall be paid as compensation to PW-4 in view of the harassment which she was subjected by the appellant.”
Advocate Ankur Prakash represented the Appellant, while AOR D. Kumanan appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Appellant’s marriage with the de facto complainant (wife) lasted only three days. Following allegations of dowry harassment, a complaint was lodged against the Appellant, his father, and his brother.
The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act, sentencing him to three years imprisonment under Section 498A IPC and one year under Section 4 of the DP Act. The Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction under Section 406 IPC but upheld the remaining convictions and sentences. The High Court, while confirming the convictions, reduced the sentence under Section 498A IPC to two years.
Court’s Observations
In view of the overwhelming evidence, the Supreme Court held, “we are not inclined to interfere with the concurrent conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act.”
The Bench noted that the marriage between the parties was solemnised in the year 2006 and the Appellant was enlarged on bail in 2023. “The case has been prolonged for a period of nearly 19 years. Both the appellant and PW-4 have moved on in life,” it remarked.
The Court referred to its decision in Samaul Sk. v. The State of Jharkhand (2021), wherein the Apex Court while reducing the sentence to that of the period already undergone recorded the voluntary offer of the appellant in that said case to pay a monetary compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three lakhs) to the de facto complainant for the benefit of her children.
Consequently, the Court held, “In view of the above, the Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 21.06.2022 in Criminal R.C. No. 1017 of 2017 is set aside. While the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act are confirmed, the sentence is modified. The appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone and is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs) within a period of four weeks in the Trial Court as compensation as directed hereinabove, to be payable.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court partly allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: M. Venkateswaran v. The State (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 106)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Ankur Prakash and Priyanka Singh; AOR M.P. Parthiban
Respondent: AOR D. Kumanan; Advocates Deepa S, Sheikh F Kalia, Veshal Tyagi, Chinmay Anand Panigrahi and Shagufa Khan
