Dowry Death: Sometimes Telling Daughters to 'Adjust' or 'Save the Marriage' Costs Them Their Lives, Says Allahabad High Court

Home / News updates Dowry Death: Sometimes Telling Daughters to 'Adjust' or 'Save the Marriage' Costs Them Their Lives, Says Allahabad High Court X Allahabad High Court cautions against normalising repeated dowry harassment complaints. Allahabad High Court says repeated advice to "save the marriage" despite dowry harassment can embolden abusers; upholds conviction in a dowry death case while reducing sentence under Section 304B IPC and applying the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. Advice to "adjust" , "compromise" or "save the marriage" despite repeated complaints of dowry harassment can embolden abusers and lead to tragic consequences, the Allahabad High Court recently observed while deciding a criminal appeal arising from the murder of a woman and her infant daughter. The appeals challenged a 2016 trial court judgment convicting all five accused under Sections 304B and 498A IPC (corresponding to Sections 80 and 86 of the BNS, respectively) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They had been acquitted of the murder charge under Section 302 IPC (corresponding to Section 103 of the BNS) but were convicted for dowry death and sentenced to life imprisonment. A division bench of Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary said that families often advise victims of dowry-related harassment to preserve the marriage or tolerate abuse for the sake of societal expectations. Such advice, the court said, may unintentionally strengthen the perpetrators and leave women exposed to continuing violence that can ultimately prove fatal . The observations came while the court upheld the conviction of a husband, his parents and two brothers in the 2011 dowry death case of 25-year-old Meena Devi and her 15-month-old daughter Soni in Uttar Pradesh's Shravasti district. However, it reduced the sentence awarded to the convicts from life imprisonment to the period already undergone, noting that the trial court had not assigned any reasons for imposing the maximum punishment despite seven years being the statutory minimum under Section 304B of the IPC. The high court said the case demonstrated how repeated complaints of dowry harassment made by the deceased to her family had been treated as routine matrimonial discord instead of genuine cries for help. It stressed that whenever a married daughter repeatedly approaches her family expressing fear, harassment or humiliation at her matrimonial home, her concerns must be met with empathy, seriousness and prompt intervention. Court added that a married daughter's safety, well-being and dignity should remain a paramount concern for her family. Calling dowry a social evil that continues to persist despite legislative measures, the bench observed that the practice has reduced women to a secondary status and often compels them to remain in abusive marriages because of family pressure or social expectations. It noted that while the Dowry Prohibition Act , Section 498A IPC (now Section 86 of the BNS) and the dowry death provision under Section 304B were enacted to curb the menace, the problem continues to claim lives. On the facts of the case, court held that the prosecution had established all the ingredients of a dowry death. It found that Meena had died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage and that she had been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry demands soon before her death, thereby attracting the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. The bench also held that the accused failed to explain how the deaths occurred inside the matrimonial home. According to the prosecution, Meena's family had alleged that her husband and in-laws persistently demanded a motorcycle and Rs 1 lakh in cash despite receiving dowry at the time of marriage. Meena had repeatedly informed her family about the harassment before she and her infant daughter were found murdered with sharp-edged weapon injuries at her matrimonial home in Jun