Such contention is to be rejected, particularly when it is evident that the conviction under Section 498A of IPC is based on the refusal of the appellant to cooperate with the arrangements for the wedding reception unless his demand for 100 sovereigns of gold as dowry is met, the bench said while dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction. The marriage lasted three days after an engagement in 2006. Post-proposal, however, bridegroom's kin refused to throw them a wedding reception unless they coughed up 100 sovereigns of gold. The bride's family did not accept this demand. The groom and his family did not permit customary practices to be conducted at the marriage ceremony. While they went to the reception, the groom’s father pulled him out from the reception dais and he refused to return to the jaimala — despite all efforts by the bride’s relatives. It also said the bridegroom had harassed his wife (PW-4) in order to pressurise her and her mother to meet the illegal dowry demand. The testimonies from family members and a photographer before the courts revealed that the groom's family was vengeful and refused to cooperate in the wedding events. Reaffirming that all ingredients of Section 498A IPC were satisfied in the case, Supreme Court held that the act committed by the groom in this case amounted to cruelty for which he would be liable in law; But factoring in mitigating circumstances — including the marriage’s short duration and the lives both members of the couple went on to lead — it adjusted his sentence to time served. No voluntary offer of compensation was made, however, in the special circumstances of the case, the court directed the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 for the children of the de facto complainant.