Client Testimonials

"By far the best legal document drafting expert! I’ve been struggling with a false 498/406 and DV case from last 2 years and so far met 20+ Different lawyers from lower court to high court, but the major difference I see in Sahil is his intentions of making me out of this situation so that I can be a free man. Only a 30 min discussion with Sahil was an eye opener to me. Now I'm feeling more confident that such cases can also be defended and law can be moved from women-centric to men-centric. I have asked Sahil for a ‘bayan’ for my DV case which he, after analyzing 50+ documents, has made it in a lightning speed time of 24 hours. I would also say I was surprised that he didn’t forget to mention even a single nook of any statement that could be in my favor. I would highly recommend anyone for a free 30 min call that can give a new hopeful direction; without losing anything."

"Sahil is one of the best brains to help someone to fight these kinds of cases. His grasping power is awesome to understand your case quickly and provide a solution. Sahil knows very well which point he has to highlight in the draft so people like us get the clarity on our own case and get the best result in the court. His knowledge is admirable as he has a good grip on different IPCs and Cr.P.C from our law system. I worked with him on my 498a petition and feeling quite confident after working with him. I will recommend everyone to talk to Sahil once to get the best result from your case. Now he is my good friend too. Thanks Sahil."

"I got in connect with Sahil sir few months back to seek his guidance for 125 CrPC, DV, and 498A. I must say it's really helpful and Sahil sir had drafted a strong WS for me. It was under the sheer guidance of Sahil sir that I could tackle my mediation in a positive manner."

"I am very thankful to Apaizers Mens Rights in supporting and helping me in my case and saved my lakhs of rupees. Sir also motivates time to time, also advises how to maintain your health first which is NECESSARY in this critical condition. It's clear that no more people from our side help or motivate during this time of false cases. In this time, we require a good or best adviser. Really, Sir IS ALL IN ONE. I repeat that unnumbered thanks to Apaizers Men's Right for the best advice to false cases."

"I got my DV interim maintenance appeal prepared from Apaizers Mens Rights for the session court. It is so nicely drafted and prepared with relevant case reference due to which the session court dismissed the interim maintenance order passed by the lower court. Then in my DV case, the opposite party filed for execution petition for the arrears of the maintenance amount 1.2 lakhs, the objections drafted by Sahil Sir with the relevant facts and case reference got accepted by the court and the court dismissed the OP execution petition."

Home 498aJudgments 498a judgement in favour of husband-Each and Every Demand does not fall within the mischief of unlawful demand as explained in Section 498A I.P.C.

498a judgement in favour of husband-Each and Every Demand does not fall within the mischief of unlawful demand as explained in Section 498A I.P.C.


498a judgement in favour of husband-Each and Every Demand does not fall within the mischief of unlawful demand as explained in Section 498A I.P.C.


498a judgement in favour of husband
498a judgement in favour of husband>

Patna High Court in its Recent Judgment quashed proceedings of complaint case u/s 498a against all the accused including the husband and his relatives on the ground that the demand alleged against them was for the construction of a house which was not a dowry demand or unlawful demand. Hence, the basic ingredient for offence under Section 498A I.P.C. is missing in this case. Therefore, the Hon’ble court quashed the criminal prosecution of the petitioners on the amount to save abuse of the process of the Court.


Case Brief- 498a judgement in favour of husband

Petitioners are the husband and other relations of the wife. In both the applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought quashing of the order passed by the magistrate, in Complaint whereby the petitioners have been asked to face trial for offences under Section 498A I.P.C.  only.
According to the complaint petition, the complainant was married to the petitioner on 29.06.2012 in a Shiv Temple. 
The parents of the complainant had gifted to the petitioners as per their capacity but the family members were not happy with the gift and they were demanding a dowry. The demand was Rs. 10 lakhs for constructing a house. 
The parents of the complainant paid 5 Lacs for that purpose and 5 Lakhs was utilized for the construction of a house but the petitioner was still demanding the remaining 5 Lacs and for non-payment of a further  5 Lacs, there is an allegation of abuse and assault.

Arguments- 498a judgement in favour of husband


The contention is that each and every demand does not fall within the mischief of unlawful demand as explained in Section 498A I.P.C. The demand alleged was not as a consideration of marriage but rather for the fulfillment of some family requirement.

The Advocate for the complainant's wife submits that the prima facie ingredient of the offence alleged is made out in the complaint and has been supported by the witnesses at the time of inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and once the Magistrate applied its mind and asked the petitioners to face trial this Court should not substitute its own views unless the view of the Magistrate is a perverse one. 

The probable defense of the accused cannot be looked into at this stage. 

Referred Judgments- 498a judgement in favour of husband

1. Sonu Gupta Vs. Dipak Gupta reported in (2015) 3 SCC 424, 
2. Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2019(2)PLJR (SC)323 and 
3. Rakhi Mishra Vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2017(4)PLJR (SC)21.

Court Opinion-498a judgement in favour of husband


There is no dispute with the instance that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Judge is required to see whether the offences alleged are prima facie disclosed. 

There is no dispute that the probable defense of the petitioner cannot be looked into at the stage of defence but rather that can be looked into at the appropriate stage of the trial only. 

The question is whether the alleged demand was an unlawful demand. The same question was there before a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in Saro Bano & Ors Vs. 

The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2005 which was an appeal against conviction, however, the nature of the demand alleged was of money for the construction of the house and the Hon’ble High Court held that the demand was not a dowry demand as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Further in Vipul Jaiswal Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2013)3 PLJR (SC) 91, money demanded from the family members of the wife was for the purchase of a computer and setting up his own business. 
The case was also an appeal against conviction and the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the demand was not a dowry demand as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
In the case of Appasaheb & Anr. Vs. The state of Maharashtra reported in 2007, the demand for money was for meeting the urgent financial needs of the family and for meeting urgent domestic expenses. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that it was not a dowry demand.
Apparently, the demand alleged against the petitioners was for the construction of a house which was not a dowry demand or unlawful demand. Hence, the basic ingredient for offence under Section 498A I.P.C. is missing in this case. 
Therefore, the criminal prosecution of the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

Conclusion- 498a judgement in favour of husband

From this article, it is clear that each and every demand cannot be termed as a dowry, it has to be as per the definition of Section 2 of the Dowry Probation Act. 
WhatsApp




    Blogger Comment
    Facebook Comment