New Delhi:
The harassment has to stop, was the message from the Supreme Court on Friday, during a hearing in the death of a woman by hanging at her matrimonial home in Chhattisgarh.
The sharp comments also come at a time the Twisha Sharma case is making headlines. The 33-year-old was found dead at her marital home in Bhopal on May 12, barely five months after her marriage. Her parents have alleged mental torture and harassment by Twisha’s in-laws.
A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan refused to interfere with the conviction of the husband’s younger brother under Section 498A of the IPC for cruelty and harassment in the Chhattisgarh case.
The court also questioned the poor treatment of brides and their families after marriage.
“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,” the court said.
The case dates back to 2010, when a woman, within three years of her marriage, was found hanging at her marital home. According to victim’s lawyer, she was repeatedly harassed by her husband and his family over dowry demands, including money and a car.
The trial court held that the continued dowry demands and harassment were closely linked to her death.
Several members of the husband’s family were convicted under Sections 304B (dowry death), 306 (abetment of suicide) and 498A (cruelty and harassment) of the IPC.
The Chhattisgarh High Court later upheld the conviction.
In the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that he was only accused under Section 498A and should be given relief.
“You should be happy that it is only 498A and only three years,” Justice Nagarathna shot back.
The judge also spotlighted the pattern of financial coercion in matrimonial homes.
“Attempt is to squeeze the bride and her family,” Justice Nagarathna said.
Referring to the allegations on record, the judge added,”What exactly did the boy’s family say? You people are beggars; you cannot pay. The girl’s family was pleading to save their daughter and they were being called beggars.”
When the lawyer for the accused attempted to respond, the judge interjected.
“You should have kept quiet. Bride’s father said they can give Rs 60,000 and you call them beggars?”
The petitioner’s lawyer also pointed to a delay in lodging the FIR but the top court did not find merit in the argument.
“Let the message go. This is how brides are treated,” the court said.
Underlining the troubling normalisation of such conduct even among the privileged, Justice Bhuyan remarked,”These are educated people.”
The court upheld the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.
