Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.4.1991, whereby respondents were acquitted. 2. The appellant had filed a complaint petition in the Court below wherein it had been alleged that his sister Anjali Devi was married to Suresh Pasupati Ram, respondent No. 1 on 15.5.1985 and, thereafter, she went to her Sasural in the year 1986. She remained at her marital place for 3 months and in this period, respondents made demand of Rs. 10,000.00 for purchase of sofa set, dining set, refrigerator. When the complainants sister came to her paternal house, she told the family members about this demand. She also told that she was quite often used to be pressurised to fulfil the demands and also she was often abused and harassed. Thereafter, Pasupati Ram came to the house of complainant at Bakarganj, Patna and told him that unless the aforesaid demands were fulfilled he will not take away his sister, rather he will desert her. The complainant expressed his inability to fulfil the alleged demands. However, Advocates notice dated 6.4.1988 was sent to the respondents, but to no effect. Thereafter, complaint petition was filed before the Court which gave rise to the case in which respondents were tried and acquitted. 3. The respondents had taken the plea of false implication because they had already filed divorce case against the complainants sister. 4. The respondents of this appeal, were charged under Secs. 498-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and tried for that offence. The complainant had examined 4 witnesses in all to prove his case. P. W. 1 as Jitendra Pd. Verma, one of the brothers of the complainant, P.W. 2 was Rajendra Prasad who was also one of the relations of the complainant, P.W. 3 Anjali Devi, was the sister of the complainant and P.W. 4 was the complainant himself. 5. The evidence of all P.Ws. regards the torture and harassment upon Anjali Devi, wife of respondent No. 1, Suresh Pasupati Ram, was based on the information given to them by Anjali herself. Of course, all P.Ws. including Anjali Devi averred on oath that the respondents had demanded Rs. 10,000.00 for purchase of sofa set, etc. Now the question is whether this demand would amount to cruelty as defined u/s. 498-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 sec. Of course, all P.Ws. including Anjali Devi averred on oath that the respondents had demanded Rs. 10,000.00 for purchase of sofa set, etc. Now the question is whether this demand would amount to cruelty as defined u/s. 498-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 sec. 498-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines cruelty as under: "(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) 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." 6. The aforesaid wordings in explaining the word cruelty u/s. 498-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 indicates that the victim woman should be subjected to such conduct on the part of the culprits which would drive her to commit suicide or to cause given injury to herself which would endanger her life or health (physical and mental). The word harassment would include persistent demands, accompanied by overt acts to coerce her to fulfil dowry demand. In this connection, the evidence of Anjali Devi is very much relevant, because it was she who was subjected to alleged cruelty. Anjali Devi, P.W. 3, had admitted in cross-examination that she wa, of course, abused for not fulfilling the dowry demand, but except for that aforesaid allegation, there was no further allegation that she was, at any point of time, subjected to physical assault, etc. She also admitted in her cross-examination that inspite of demand of Rs. 10,000.00 her relation with Sasural people was quite normal and she used to visit cinema house in the company of her husband. Now the point is whether the aforesaid evidence of Anjali Devi taken in its totality would amount to cruelty as defined u/s. 498-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 which would drive her either to commit suicide or to commit any injury upon herself endangering her life of health. Now the point is whether the aforesaid evidence of Anjali Devi taken in its totality would amount to cruelty as defined u/s. 498-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 which would drive her either to commit suicide or to commit any injury upon herself endangering her life of health. The very fact that the relations with her Sasural people was quite normal inspite of alleged demands and that she used to go even to Cinema Halls, in the company of her husband also indicates that her life at Sasural was quite normal and she was not under any compelling circumstance either to commit suicide or to cause any grave injury to her life. Now the question is whether she was harassed as to be coerced to fulfil the dowry demands of Sasural people. In this connection, I do not think there is any evidence in the deposition of any of the witnesses that there was any other overt act except persistent demands made by Anjalis sasural people causing her mental and physical harassment. So, I do not think the alleged act on the part of respondent in making alleged demand would fall under the word harassment as mentioned in sec. 498-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Explanation (b). An admission by the complainant (P.W. 4) at para 8 in cross-examination before the charge to the effect that he filed this case after her sisters husband had already filed a divorce suit also would go to show that this case was filed not motivated by harassment or cruelty, heaped upon the complainants sister, but rather by way of counterblast to the case of divorce filed by respondent No. 1, Anjalis husband. This circumstance would also show that as a matter of fact, there was no cruelty as defined u/s. 498-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 committed upon the complainants sister. 7. So far dowry demands are concerned, some letters were brought on record (Exhibits 1, 1/1 and 1/2) of the case, which perhaps, (letters) were filed to substantiate that, of course, dowry demands were made; but two of the letters were addressed to Indradeo Pd. and one of the letters was addressed to the complainant. In none of these letters there is specific mention of Rs. 10,000.00 , or any demand of sofa set, etc. In the letters rather there were certain statements regarding the promise made by Indradeo Pd. and complainant. and one of the letters was addressed to the complainant. In none of these letters there is specific mention of Rs. 10,000.00 , or any demand of sofa set, etc. In the letters rather there were certain statements regarding the promise made by Indradeo Pd. and complainant. What this promise referred to was not clear from these letters. Besides the above, these letters were written by Suresh Pasupati Ram who had alleged that his wife as per promise did not conform to his expectations. That means, that he was raising allegation that his wife was not upto his liking nor upto the standard which was perhaps represented to be by her negotiator for marriage. Perhaps it was under these circumstances, that divorce suit was filed. Admittedly, this complaint filed after filing of the divorce suit. 8. The circumstances and evidence discussed above did not at all indicate that the case fall u/s. 498-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 or even under the Dowry Prohibition Act. Moreover, since no charge was framed under the Dowry Prohibition Act, accused-appellant could not be convicted under the aforesaid Act. The judgment rendered by the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence, did not suffer from any perversity or unreasonableness, necessitating any interference by this Court. 9. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.