The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that taunting a woman for not conceiving a child does not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court, therefore, quashed criminal proceedings against the married sisters of a man who were accused alongside him in a dowry harassment case.
Justice Harinath N, in his order dated April 24, 2025, noted that the sisters—Petitioners 3 and 4—had been living separately after their marriage and were not residing with the complainant or her husband, the first accused. The judge stated:
Read Also:- Andhra Pradesh HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Sexual Harassment Case, Citing Investigation Needs
"The petitioners 3 and 4, soon after their marriage, were staying away and as such could not have resorted to any harassment to the third respondent... such vague allegations without any specific details... cannot sustain the scrutiny of law."
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the wife of the first accused, who alleged cruelty and dowry demands by her husband and his family. However, during the investigation, none of the ten witnesses mentioned any specific instances involving the sisters. The only charge against them was that they allegedly taunted the complainant for not conceiving.
The Court emphasized that even if such taunting occurred, it could not justify criminal charges under Sections 498A IPC or the Dowry Prohibition Act:
"Taunting on the ground of not being able to conceive cannot be taken as sufficient grounds for continuation of proceedings."
Furthermore, the judgment criticized the tendency to implicate distant relatives in domestic disputes:
Read Also:- Delhi High Court: Woman’s Suicide Outside Matrimonial Home Still Counts As Dowry Death
"This case is another where unconnected relatives of the first accused are roped in as accused only for wreaking out vengeance."
Justice Harinath concluded that continuing legal action against the sisters would serve no purpose and only amount to harassment. As a result, the Court allowed the criminal petition in part and quashed the case—CC No. 623 of 2022—against Petitioners 3 and 4 alone, which was pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Civil Judge, Srikakulam.
The decision reiterates the importance of distinguishing between actual cruelty and general familial tensions, especially when there is no concrete evidence or direct involvement.
