New Delhi, January 24, 2025 – The Supreme Court of India has upheld the conviction of a groom under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, for harassing his wife over dowry demands, including a demand for 100 sovereigns of gold. The Court, however, modified his sentence to the period already undergone and directed him to pay ₹3 lakh compensation to his estranged wife.
A bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti dismissed the appeal filed by M. Venkateswaran, affirming his guilt but considering the passage of time and the fact that both parties had moved on in life. The Court observed that the appellant had served three months in custody and, instead of further imprisonment, imposed a financial penalty to compensate the complainant.
Marriage Lasted Only Three Days
The case stemmed from a complaint lodged by the bride, Sridevi (PW-4), who alleged that her husband and his family insisted on an increased dowry of 100 sovereigns of gold even after the initial arrangement of 60 sovereigns for the bride and 10 for the groom. The demand escalated, leading to harassment when the bride’s family failed to meet it.
According to the prosecution, the accused refused to participate in the couple’s wedding reception, stating that he would only do so if his demand for 100 sovereigns of gold was met. Witnesses, including the bride’s family members and a photographer, corroborated the claim that the groom and his family did not cooperate during the wedding functions.
Conviction and Sentencing History
The Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, convicted the groom under Section 498A IPC (cruelty by husband) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in 2016, sentencing him to three years of imprisonment. His conviction was later upheld by the Madras High Court in 2022, with the sentence reduced to two years of imprisonment under IPC and one year under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction but substituted the remaining sentence with a monetary penalty. The Court directed him to deposit ₹3 lakh within four weeks in the trial court, failing which he would have to serve the original sentence.
Court’s Observations on Dowry Harassment
The Supreme Court underscored that the evidence clearly established the unlawful dowry demand and the psychological harassment inflicted on the bride. The bench noted:
“The appellant subjected PW-4 to harassment with a view to coercing her and her mother to meet the unlawful demand for gold sovereigns and continued to harass her when they failed to meet such demand.”
While acknowledging that both parties had moved on—with the complainant now married and settled abroad—the Court found it appropriate to impose a compensatory penalty instead of extending the sentence.
Final Directions
The Court instructed that the ₹3 lakh be paid to Sridevi as compensation, and warned that failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated period would result in the appeal being deemed dismissed, requiring the appellant to serve the remaining sentence.
