Jahanvi Agarwal
Recently, the Delhi High Court held that the husband’s extramarital affair cannot be used as evidence against him in a case involving the wife’s dowry death.
The single judge bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan granted bail to the petitioner in a case related to the death of his wife by suicide, also noting the charge sheet has been filed in the case, the trial would take time and no useful purpose would be keeping the man in custody.
According to the deceased’s statements, it appeared that she was receiving treatment for her anxiety and depression, and the demand for dowry was not claimed to be a trigger for those conditions.
It was also observed that the girl’s father was not claiming that the petitioner had made a dowry demand the day before the event on August 7, 2022. After their marriage on November 30, 2020, the girl left her matrimonial home on April 19, 2021, claiming that her husband had engaged in betting, dowry harassment, and extramarital affairs.
The Bench stated that:
“For invoking the offence under Section 304B IPC, not only the harassment or cruelty should be soon before death but it should be related to demand of dowry. The expression “soon before death” is a relative expression. Time lag may differ from case to case. All that is necessary that the demand of dowry should not be stale but should be a continuing cause for death of married woman under Section 304B of the IPC.”
The bench ruled that additional factors that must be taken into account before granting bail can’t be overlooked by the court.
The bench stated that:
“At this stage, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the petitioner. Delay in commencement and conclusion of the trial is a factor to be taken into account and the accused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period if trial is not likely to be concluded within reasonable time.”