By Admin 
The Supreme Court has made strong remarks regarding the husband’s insult to his wife’s family. The Supreme Court showed a mirror to the society by rejecting the petition of the brother-in-law who was convicted in a Chhattisgarh case related to the suspicious death of a woman. The judges termed the girl’s family’s expectation of money and gifts as an attempt to ‘squeeze’ the daughters-in-law.
The matter is of 2010. In Chhattisgarh, within just three years of marriage, a woman committed suicide by hanging herself. The woman’s family alleged that the daughter was being harassed demanding a car and cash. The death had occurred unnaturally within seven years of the marriage, hence, the court considered it legally a ‘dowry death’.
Several members of the husband’s family were convicted under IPC sections 304B (dowry death), section 306 (abetment of suicide) and section 498A (dowry harassment) of the Indian Penal Code. The petition which was heard by the Supreme Court on Friday (May 29, 2026) was filed by the brother-in-law of the deceased woman. The lower court had found her guilty of dowry harassment.
During the hearing of the case, citing the facts of the case, the bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjwal Bhuyan said, ‘The boy’s family told the girl’s family that you people are beggars. You can’t pay. The girl’s family was begging to save their daughter and were being called beggars. The bride’s father had said that he could give Rs 60,000 and you call him a beggar?
Also read:- ‘PM Modi himself is monitoring it’, government said on Supreme Court’s concerns in NEET paper leak case
Expressing strong displeasure over the tendency to humiliate the girl’s family, Justice Nagarathna said, ‘Why do boys marry girls and humiliate them and their families? This message should be sent to the society that insulting the daughter-in-law and her family in this manner will no longer be acceptable.
The petitioner’s lawyer argued that his client is only accused of section 498A (harassment). On this, the Supreme Court took a tough stand and said, ‘You should be happy that he has been sentenced to only 3 years.’ Justice Bhuiyan, a member of the bench, expressed concern over the persistence of such bad practices among educated families.
Also read:- Vinesh Phogat got permission to participate in the trials of Asian Games, why SC said – You have many achievements in your name but the country comes first.