Cuttack, Nov 18: A husband requesting for financial support from his in-laws to secure a job, with an assurance of repayment, cannot come within the definition of dowry demand, the Orrisa High Court observed recently.
The bench of Justice SK Sahoo said this while setting aside the husband’s conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (Dowry death).
However, the court upheld the husband’s conviction under Section 498-A of the IPC (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and confirmed the sentence awarded to him for the offence.
As per the case details, the complainant’s daughter lived separately from her husband’s family for four months following a family feud.
Later, his daughter committed suicide. Her husband claimed that she had consumed poison. However, the complainant filed an FIR alleging dowry-related torture by the appellant, leading to his daughter’s death.
The trial court found the husband guilty under sections 498-A & 304-B of the IPC, but acquitted him under section 302.
However, the High Court set aside his conviction under section 304-B, stating that the demand for money for a job, as alleged against the husband, did not fall under the definition of ‘dowry’ as per the Dowry Prohibition Act.