Support daughters harassed in married life, do not wait for a major tragedy

The Delhi High Court, making a significant observation, has stated that if a daughter complains of violence or harassment in her married life, parents must take her words with utmost seriousness. The Court clarified that a daughter should not be silenced by advising her to compromise just to save the marriage. The Court further added that a daughter returning to her parental home should not be a matter of shame for the family.

According to a report by Dainik Bhaskar, the High Court emphasised that for any woman, her safety and dignity are more important than marriage. One should not wait for a major untoward incident or tragedy to occur before helping a daughter. This observation was made by Justice Madhu Jain during the hearing of a 2018 suicide case.

The case pertained to flight attendant Anisia Batra, who allegedly committed suicide on July 13, 2018, in South Delhi's Panchsheel Park. 39-year-old Anisia was employed with German Airlines. Her parents alleged that her husband used to physically harass her. At the time of the incident, her husband Mayank Singhvi took her to the hospital, where doctors declared her dead.

After hearing the case, the High Court has acquitted the husband, Mayank Singhvi, of charges of cruelty and abetment of suicide. During this judgment, the Court also expressed concern over the practice of collectively levelling charges of cruelty against the husband's relatives in marital disputes. The Court stated that a person should not be made an accused in a criminal case merely because they are a relative of the husband. Clear roles or evidence are indispensable to level charges against any individual.

The Court further clarified that marital disputes or strained relationships do not, in themselves, constitute the crime of abetment of suicide. For this, an active and intentional role of the opposite party must be proven. The Court also noted that if a woman had held someone responsible in a message before committing suicide, the crime of abetment of suicide is not proven solely on that basis.

In this case, the prosecution alleged that Anisia had been physically and mentally harassed. It was alleged that money was demanded from her and pressure was exerted, jointly with her mother, regarding the amount received from the sale of a flat in her name. Anisia's mother also alleged that her son-in-law and parents-in-law constantly demanded money.

On this issue, the Delhi High Court observed that every demand for money or transaction during marriage cannot be considered dowry. To prove dowry, it is necessary that the demand has a direct connection with the marriage. Thus, while the Court encouraged parents to support their daughters, it simultaneously warned against the practice of implicating family members without evidence.