III. SHIVANAND MALLAPPA KOTI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Question 1

III. SHIVANAND MALLAPPA KOTI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA (BACKGROUND)

Answer 1

The father of the victim received information that she had caught fire and was in the hospital. On his asking as to how she received the injuries, she said that while she was cooking, her mother-in-law came behind her and lit fire on her saree, and this statement was made in front of her father and some other relatives. The allegation was that for not fulfilling the demand of dowry, she was killed by her mother-in-law and other accused persons.

Question 2

III. SHIVANAND MALLAPPA KOTI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA (EVIDENCE PRESENT(

Answer 2

There were letters between the victim’s Husband and Mother-in-law, wherein he expressed his intention to contract a second marriage because the victim had not brought in enough dowry and even the mother-in-law, in another letter, stated that she could have gotten more dowry as her son was in government service. There was another letter that the victim had sent to her mother, where she had mentioned that she wants to pay for some things that her mother-in-law had bought, but she can’t, and she is embarrassed that her family is not paying for the money.

Question 3

III. SHIVANAND MALLAPPA KOTI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA (HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA)

Answer 3

The High Court held that the mother-in-law was to be held liable under 498A but not the Husband or the Brother of the husband.

Question 4

III. SHIVANAND MALLAPPA KOTI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA (SCI)

Answer 4

1. No demand for dowry could be established from the letters as the court stated that the letters which form the primary evidence for the question of Dowry did not explicitly talk about demand for dowry but just mentioned that they could have received more.
2. In case of 498A the court interpreted that the second part of the section “harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
   It doesn’t talk about dowry demand but “speaks of unlawful demand for property and valuable articles,” and the court stated that there was no such record of any such demand made. The court explicitly stated that since there is no reference to any demand for dowry or any such matter of this nature. The court also took into account that the accused had paid for half of the wedding expenses, and the victim wanted to send money to her mother-in-law, but there was no demand.

As a result, the conviction under section 498A was set aside.