Supreme Court slams ‘cruel’ father: ‘What’s the difference between animal and a man?’ | India News

The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on a man for throwing his estranged wife and minor daughters out of their matrimonial home, equating his behavior to that of an animal. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh lambasted the man, saying, “What kind of a man are you if you don’t even care for your minor daughters? What wrong have they done in coming to this world?”
Visibly irked, the bench added, “He was only interested in having multiple children. We cannot allow such a cruel man to enter our court at all. Sara din ghar pe kabhi Saraswati Puja aur kabhi Lakshmi Puja, aur phir yeh sab (you worship Goddess Saraswati and Lakshmi all day, and then do such things).”
Anguished by the case’s details, the court demanded that the man pay maintenance or transfer agricultural land to his estranged wife and daughters before it considers passing any favorable orders. “What is the difference between an animal and a man who does not take care of minor daughters?” the bench remarked, according to news agency PTI.
The man, a Jharkhand resident, was convicted in 2015 for torturing and harassing his wife over dowry demands, under Section 498A of the IPC. He was accused of fraudulently having his wife’s uterus removed, abandoning her and their daughters, and marrying another woman.
The case, registered in 2009, led to his conviction, sentencing him to 2.5 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000. He served 11 months in custody. In 2024, the Jharkhand High Court reduced his sentence to 1.5 years but increased the fine to ₹1 lakh.
The couple married in 2003, but the wife was reportedly tortured and thrown out after just four months due to an unmet dowry demand of ₹50,000. Despite several panchayat meetings, the man refused to reconcile. By June 2009, he allegedly remarried and expelled his wife and daughters from the home.
While the high court noted that there was insufficient evidence to prove the removal of the wife’s uterus or the remarriage, the Supreme Court insisted the man pay for the upkeep of his wife and daughters, warning that the case would not proceed until he did so. The hearing was adjourned to February 14.