Gold gifts exchanged in 'Chhoochhak' ceremony don’t amount to dowry, says SC and gives relief to husband from dowry case

On November 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of India gave relief to a husband from jail time in a dowry case, stating that the demand for a gold ring and chain during the child’s “Chhoochhak” ceremony doesn’t count as dowry demand.

The Supreme Court pointed out that according to Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, a dowry demand refers to any demand for property or security that is given or promised in relation to marriage. However, in this case, the marriage had taken place and this demand was made during the child birth ceremony and so it does not count as dowry.

To summarie the case, the couple got married in November 1986 and in May 1988, they welcomed a baby boy. Later, during a traditional ceremony called “Chhoochhak,” the husband allegedly demanded a gold ring and chain from the wife’s family.


Tragically, on November 24, 1988, both the wife and child were found dead in a well. The following day, on November 25, 1988, the her father filed an FIR (No. 276/1988) at P.S. Nagaur, claiming that his daughter (the wife) had been harassed and tortured over the demands for a gold ring and chain at the 'chhoochhak' ceremony.

On December 14, 1988, Chargesheet No. 204 was filed against him for offences under Section 498A and 304B of the IPC. On August 1, 1990, the Additional Court of Sessions, Nagaur passed its order in Sessions Case No. 3/1989, convicting and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304B and to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 498A, to run concurrently.

Feeling wronged by the conviction and sentences, he went to the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur through S.B. Crl. Appeal No. 243/1990. On April 27, 2015, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentences under both Section 304B and Section 498A. Hence, he filed a criminal appeal in the Supreme Court.

On November 29, 2025, the husband won the case in Supreme Court for the dowry allegation (304B) but not for the Section 498A case. Advocate Pratiksha Sharma represented the husband.

Also read: Wife filed criminal cases against husband’s parents under Section 498A for instigating their son to demand dowry from her; she lost case in SC for this reason

Advocate Tushar Kumar practicing in the Supreme Court of India, said to ET Wealth Online: "The judgment serves as a sober caution to husbands that the failure of a dowry death charge does not, by itself, absolve criminal liability within matrimony."

According to Kumar, the Supreme Court’s decision to sustain the conviction under Section 498A IPC highlights that cruelty is an independent and substantive offence, capable of standing on its own footing even in the absence of a legally cognisable dowry demand.

Kumar says: "The broader lesson is that while courts will not permit an over-expansive or casual invocation of Section 304B IPC contrary to statutory text and precedent, they will not hesitate to uphold culpability where conduct amounts to cruelty in law."

According to Kumar, husbands must therefore recognise that social customs or familial expectations, if accompanied by harassment or coercion, may still attract penal consequences notwithstanding the failure of a dowry allegation.

Also read: Husband gets six months’ jail in Section 498A case; Kerala HC says abuse behind closed doors needs no independent witnesses

Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris, said to ET Wealth Online: "This judgment underscores that Section 304B IPC cannot be invoked mechanically and that husbands can effectively rely on Satvir Singh precedent to challenge allegations based on post-marriage demands unconnected with the marriage itself."

Razvi says that demands linked to later ceremonies or customs, even if proved, do not automatically constitute dowry. The case also demonstrates that courts will segregate liability under Sections 304B and 498A, setting aside dowry-death convictions where the statutory nexus is missing while limiting punishment to cruelty if independently established.

Razvi says: "Practically, where the accused has already undergone imprisonment exceeding the sentence under Section 498A, courts may decline further custody, highlighting the importance of establishing timelines and evidentiary facts to rebut the dowry connection."

Supreme Court analyses the Dowry allegation

The Supreme Court in its judgement (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).1203/2016) dated November 29, 2025 said that they have noted that while affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 304B as well as Section 498A IPC, the High Court analyzed as under:

“In the present case, the prosecution has proved the fact that there was demand of golden ring and gold chain at the time of Choochhak and when the same was not fulfilled, the appellant-accused (husband) started torturing the deceased and she was not even sent to her parental house and was also not even permitted to meet them. Nainu Khan (PW-5) and Munir Khan (PW-13) also stated that she was not being kept in a good condition and they heard the voice of weeping of the deceased in the night. Thus, this case law does not help the appellant-accused.“

Also read: Despite wife filing 498A criminal charges, SC allows husband to go out and take a job in Belgium after two years of unemployment

The Supreme Court said that when the high court’s judgement is juxtaposed with paragraph 21 of Satvir Singh judgement, they find that the said demand made for gold ornaments at the time of the Chhoochhak ceremony cannot be considered to be a dowry demand.

Case law cited: Satvir Singh vs. State of Punjab (2001) 8 SCC 633

The Supreme Court said: “It could have been a demand which was made not in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but at the time of the birth of the child, whereas a dowry demand within the meaning and scope of 304B IPC should be any property or security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage.”

Thus the Supreme Court in view of the above reasoning, found that the invocation of Section 304B against the accused was not justified. Hence, the judgment of the High Court as well as the Sessions Court convicting the appellant under Section 304B was set aside.

Also read: Husband wins divorce case after court finds wife’s family hid infertility details; to pay Rs 5 lakh one-time alimony

Supreme Court says this about the 498A allegations

The Supreme Court said that as far as the conviction and sentence under Section 498A of the IPC is concerned, they find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the offences which are delineated under the said Section.

For ease of reference, the said section is extracted as under: “Section 498 A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”

Also read: Vague, general allegations can’t sustain 498A case, says Calcutta High Court; 22-year fight ends in relief for husband’s mother, brother

The Supreme Court said that on a juxtaposition of the ingredients of the said section (498A) with the evidence on record, they find that the High Court was justified in affirming the conviction and sentence under Section 498A of the Act.

The Supreme Court said that they found that the Sessions Court had imposed a sentence of one year of rigorous imprisonment only under Section 498A on the appellant and a fine of Rs 100. It is stated to have been paid.

The Supreme Court said that the husband has undergone rigorous imprisonment for five months longer than what has been imposed on him under Section 498A of the IPC.

This Court, by interim order dated December 6, 2016, had released the appellant (husband) on suspension of sentence and bail.

Consequently, since his incarceration has been much more than what had been imposed by the Sessions Court, and was affirmed by the High Court, we find that it is not just and proper to impose any further sentence on the appellant herein.

Supreme Court judgement: “Consequently, the appellant’s conviction under Section 304B IPC is set aside but the conviction under Section 498A IPC is sustained. Since the appellant is on suspension of sentence and bail, the bail bonds stand cancelled. The appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed.”

How does the Satvir Singh vs. State of Punjab (2001) 8 SCC 633 judgment apply in the present case?

According to Razvi, the judgment in Satvir Singh squarely applies because it clearly holds that, for an offence under Section 304B IPC, the demand must be “in connection with the marriage” and not a demand arising after marriage due to subsequent social or customary events.

Razvi says that paragraph 21 of Satvir Singh draws a decisive distinction between dowry demands linked to marriage and post-marriage demands made on occasions such as festivals or ceremonies.

In this case as discussed in this article, the Supreme Court applied this principle to hold that the alleged demand for a gold ring and chain at the chhoochhak ceremony performed after the birth of a child, more than two years after the marriage—was not a dowry demand within the meaning of law.

Razvi says: "Consequently, despite the wife’s death occurring within seven years of marriage, the essential dowry nexus was absent, rendering the conviction under Section 304B IPC unsustainable, while the conviction under Section 498A IPC for cruelty alone was upheld."