A Dowry Harassment Case, a Witness Who Suddenly Changed Her Statement, In-Laws With Local Influence. Here's How She Got Justice.
About the Client
A 25-year-old girl who married into a well-known business family in Sonepat, Haryana in 2018. The wedding was grand with hundreds of guests. Both the family were happy and a good amount of gold jewellery, a car, cash, and property were given at the time of marriage. But within the first year, things changed. At first, in-laws just hinted at a bigger car, more cash, and more gold. Slowly, the hints turned into direct demands and when the demands were not met right away, it turned into open harassment.
What Was the Case
The harassment for additional dowry increased slowly for about a year. In the end, her husband's family beat her so badly that she required hospitalization. Her family filed three police case under:
- Section 498A of the IPC / Section 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 to punish the husband and his family for cruelty.
- Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 for dowry demand.
- Domestic Violence Act, 2005, She also filed a separate case under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The purpose of all these cases was to get a separate safe home to stay, protection from her husband's family, and financial support to live on.
Her husband's family had social and political influence in Sonepat. They fought back in two ways. First, they went to the High Court to quash the criminal case. They said the complaint was false. These days, courts check 498A complaints more carefully as per Supreme Court guidelines. So this kind of defence is now common.
Second, her husband filed another petition called as restitution of conjugal rights. Through this petition, he requested the court to direct her return to the same home where he physically harassed his wife. Her injury records already proved what had happened there.
What Made This Case Difficult
- A neighbour who had originally supported her side of the story had even given an initial statement to the police confirming what she had witnessed. But later, during the investigation, she changed her statement. This seemed to happen because the in-laws pressured her.
- Her in-laws had some local influence in Sonepat. So a simple denial was not enough to counter their petition in the High Court asking to quash the case. Strong, properly documented evidence was required instead.
- Her husband had filed a restitution petition asking the court to order her to legally return home, even though the home was not safe and the criminal case against him was still going on.
- Her parents were supporting her financially during this tough time, were under social pressure from relatives to “settle quietly” rather than pursue the matter fully, which had to be handled gently but firmly
How SPJ Advocates Handled It
Months 1–3 — Immediate Safety and Documentation
- Compiled and formally certified the complete medical documentation of her injuries from the hospital where she got treatment, ensuring every record was admissible and properly authenticated
- Filed a Domestic Violence Act application to get an interim protection order and a residence order, securing both her physical safety and her legal right to a share of the matrimonial property while the case was ongoing
- Coordinated closely with the Investigating Officer to ensure the chargesheet was filed within the timelines expected under the Supreme Court's guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), which discourage automatic, indefinite delay in genuine cruelty complaints
Months 4–14 — Defending the Case Before the High Court
- Opposed the in-laws' quashing petition before the High Court, placing the certified medical evidence and the neighbour's original police statement clearly on record to demonstrate the complaint was genuine, not fabricated
- Used the neighbour's own earlier police statement in cross-examination to expose she had changed her testimony in court. This badly weakened the defence's main argument.
- Strongly opposed the husband's conjugal rights petition asking the court to send her back to matrimonial home. We argued that since there was strong evidence of the assault, sending her back would put her in danger again.
- Kept detailed records of every hearing and every argument raised. We knew the case could end in two ways — a full trial, or a settlement — depending on how strong the evidence turned out to be.
Months 15–21 — Negotiated Resolution
- The medical evidence was strong. The neighbour's statement did not worked because it had clear gaps. Looking at this, it was almost clear the trial would end up with our victory. So instead of dragging the case on for years, the opposite party requested to sit down to settle the criminal case and the civil claims together, in one go.
- Negotiated a settlement in which her in-laws agreed to pay compensation, returned her streedhan in full, including the original gold jewellery given at the wedding, and both sides agreed to proceed with a mutual consent divorce rather than a prolonged, bitter contested case
- Ensured the interim protection order stayed legally valid until the divorce decree was final. This way, her safety was protected at every stage of the negotiation.
The Result
Within the first 3 months, she got an interim protection order and a residence order. This gave her legal safety right away and the right to stay in portion of the matrimonial house.
The full case took 21 months to finish. This included both the criminal case and the Domestic Violence Act case. In the end, her in-laws agreed to pay compensation, return her streedhan (the gifts and jewellery given to her), and finalise a mutual consent divorce as part of the settlement.
Facing dowry harassment or abuse? Call SPJ Advocates on +91-8920245815 to work on your Case.
