In any household, a word of appreciation or a comment about household work is common. According to the judge, such a comment by a mother-in-law would not constitute cruelty. In a recent ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court determined that a mother-in-demand law’s that her daughter-in-law be perfect at household chores does not constitute cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The sole judge, Dr. VRK Krupa Sagar, rejected the argument that the appellant-husband and his mother subjected the deceased woman to cruelty because they frequently demanded that she perform her household duties with greater precision.
“A married lady being told by her mother-in-law that she required more perfection in doing or attending household work can never be said to be cruelty or harassment among family members. A praise or a comment with reference to the works that were being done is a common factor in any household. It is no one’s case that she was either abused or physically beaten for her imperfections in doing household works,” the Court observed.
An appeal that was filed by a mother and her son, both of whom had been convicted on charges of dowry death of the daughter-in-law, was being heard by the Court. The daughter-in-law had passed away within eight months of her marriage in April 2008.
Within the first eight months of their daughter’s marriage to the respondent, the complainant asserted that their daughter was cruelly treated by the respondent. It was also alleged that the appellants compared the wedding ceremony and the arrangements made by the bride’s family with those of the wedding celebrations of the other sons in the family. “Drawing comparison for marriage celebrations or elders telling the newly married girl about the need for attending household works more efficiently are no way connected to dowry and cruelty with reference to dowry as mentioned in Section 304-B Indian Penal Code (IPC),” the Court said.
The judge added that the mere demand for dowry cannot be considered cruel unless the refusal to comply with the demand results in cruelty. In its order, the bench stated that the evidence presented was insufficient to convict the appellants of dowry murder.
The bench also observed that there was never an instance of any of the defendants expelling the decedent from the house or of the decedent fleeing the matrimonial home and complaining to her mother and brother about any trouble caused by the defendants. The conviction was quashed as a result of the bench’s observations.
