HC drops dowry charges against distant relative of husband

July 16, 2010

AHMEDABAD: Gujarat High Court on Thursday dropped charges of causing mental harassment and demanding dowry against one Naishadhbhai Trivedi. Trivedi is maternal uncle of the main accused's sister-in-law.


The court ruled that adverse remarks made on phone by husband's sister-in-law's maternal uncle, who happens to be her mother's cousin, not real brother, does not amount to an offence under Section 498A of IPC.

Last year, one Pooja Bhatt had lodged a complaint with the Satellite police against her husband and his family members accusing them of causing mental torture and demanding dowry. The police booked them all under Section 498 of IPC. Police investigated the case and a trial has already commenced against the family.

Interestingly, one of the accused in this case was Trivedi, who is not directly related to Pooja's husband. "He is stated to be maternal uncle of jethani...He is not even the real uncle but is a cousin brother of mother of jethani," Justice Akil Kureshi noted in his order.

The complainant woman accused Trivedi by stating that he used to make phone calls and make false allegations that she was not getting along well with her husband.

"This allegation by itself, in my opinion, would not constitute any offence much less offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC or any of the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act," the court noted.

The complaint also stated in later part that Trivedi along with other members of the family questioned as to why she did not bring ornaments in her dowry. But the court was not convinced with the accusation.

"The sentence that Trivedi also used to taunt the complainant for not bringing enough dowry is only to involve him. This coupled with the fact that the Trivedi is not directly related to the husband of the complainant and admittedly he is a distant relative of the sister-in-law of the husband of the complainant, I am of the opinion that permitting trial against the present petitioner would amount to abuse of process of court," the court observed and exonerated the petitioner.