I understand why privacy weighs on you. A dowry harassment case exposes the private life of a marriage, family finances, arguments, allegations of greed and abuse, and sometimes intimate matters. Nobody wants neighbours, relatives or colleagues hearing it all. Whether you are the woman who complained, a family member, or a husband or in-law accused, you deserve a clear answer. An in-camera trial in a dowry harassment case is not automatic under Indian law, because cruelty is not among the offences requiring closed trials. But courts can close proceedings where justice requires, and related family forums offer much stronger privacy.

Let me briefly explain the offences. Cruelty by a husband or his relatives is covered by Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), formerly Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with cruelty defined in Section 86. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 punishes giving or taking dowry under Section 3 and demanding dowry under Section 4. These cases usually run alongside domestic violence, maintenance, divorce and stridhan proceedings.

The starting point is open justice. Section 327(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now Section 366(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), declares every criminal court an open court. Open trials ensure transparency and protect the accused against secret proceedings.

Mandatory in-camera trials apply only to specific offences. Section 366(2) BNSS requires closed trials for rape and related offences, and Section 37 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for sexual offences against children. Cruelty and dowry offences are not included. So there is no automatic right to an in-camera trial in a dowry harassment case.

If the case includes sexual violence, the position changes. If the husband is charged with sexual intercourse with his wife during separation under Section 67 BNS, or if any family member is charged with rape under Section 64 BNS, those charges require an in-camera trial under Section 366(2) BNSS, and the woman's identity is protected under Section 72 BNS. If a minor is involved, POCSO's protections apply.

For ordinary dowry harassment cases, the key provision is the proviso to Section 366(1) BNSS. It allows the presiding judge, if he thinks fit, to order at any stage that the public generally, or any particular person, shall not have access to the courtroom. In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966), the Supreme Court held that courts have inherent power to hold proceedings in camera where publicity would defeat the ends of justice. Testimony about intimate marital matters, allegations about character or intimidation by relatives can justify such orders.

Constitutional values support privacy in family matters. Article 21 protects privacy and dignity, recognised in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), including privacy in marriage. Article 19(1)(a) protects press freedom, and Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018) favoured open courts while accepting exceptions for sensitive matters. Live-streaming rules adopted after that case exclude matrimonial matters.

Related family proceedings offer much stronger privacy. If the woman has filed a domestic violence application, Section 16 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 allows proceedings to be held in camera where the circumstances warrant and either party so desires. Under Section 11 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, Family Court proceedings, such as divorce and maintenance, may be held in camera and must be if either party so desires. Much of the sensitive evidence can be heard in these forums privately.

Counselling and mediation are private by nature. Many dowry complaints are first referred to Crime Against Women cells for counselling. Courts refer matrimonial disputes to court-annexed mediation, which is confidential under the Mediation Act, 2023. The Supreme Court has endorsed pre-litigation mediation mechanisms in matrimonial disputes, including in Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal (2025). Settlements reached this way can end the criminal case without any public hearing.

In the criminal case itself, partial measures are often easier to obtain than full closure. The court can record the woman's testimony in camera while other hearings remain open. It can exclude specific persons, such as relatives who intimidate her. It can allow screens under Sakshi v. Union of India (2004) and video testimony under Section 254 BNSS and Section 530 BNSS, as upheld in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003).

Anonymisation is increasingly common. Many High Courts and the Supreme Court mask party names in judgments involving matrimonial disputes. Your lawyer can request that names be masked in orders and cause lists, and that personal details such as the woman's current address be kept confidential. Marital communications are protected under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, now Section 128 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), though this does not bar the wife from testifying about offences against her.

Children need particular protection. If children testify or are discussed, Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 prohibits disclosure in media of any information that may identify a child victim or witness. Courts can also keep custody-related material confidential.

Sensitive evidence can be sealed. Medical records, photographs of injuries, private messages and recordings can be kept in sealed cover. In P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2019), the Supreme Court recognised that access to sensitive electronic material can be restricted where privacy requires. Media reporting can be restrained through postponement orders, as recognised in Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI (2012), and publishing in-camera proceedings without permission is unlawful under Section 366(3) BNSS.

Social media is often the real privacy threat in dowry cases. Posts by either family naming the other, sharing wedding photographs or making allegations can cause lasting damage. Defamation under Section 356 BNS and takedown under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 may be available. Courts can also direct parties to refrain from publicising the dispute.

To request an in-camera or restricted hearing, your lawyer or the Public Prosecutor should file a written application invoking the proviso to Section 366(1) BNSS, the inherent power in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Article 21 privacy. It should explain specific harm, such as intimate marital details, allegations about character, children's welfare or intimidation. Supporting material strengthens the request.

In-camera does not exclude the accused or their lawyers. Under Section 273 CrPC, now Section 308 BNSS, evidence must be taken in the presence of the accused or their pleaders. The burden of proof remains unchanged. Only the public's access and the scope of publication are affected.

If you are the husband or an in-law, privacy protects you too. You can seek directions against prejudicial publicity, which can undermine your fair trial right under Article 21. If allegations against relatives are vague, you can seek quashing under Section 482 CrPC, now Section 528 BNSS, following Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022) and Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2024). Matrimonial cases can also be quashed on settlement following B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012). Ending the case this way avoids public trial altogether.

If the trial court refuses a reasonable request, you may approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS or Article 227. Where cross-cases are pending in different courts, you can seek transfer so they are heard together, which reduces repeated exposure. The Supreme Court frequently transfers matrimonial cases for the wife's convenience under Section 406 CrPC, now Section 446 BNSS.

Retired Judges Panel: Aapka Legal Advice offers consultations with retired High Court judges, retired District and Sessions Judges and former Family Court judges who advise alongside its criminal lawyers on matrimonial and dowry disputes.

Their experience across criminal and family forums helps you decide where sensitive evidence can be heard most privately, which requests courts are likely to grant, and whether settlement or quashing is realistic. For confidential guidance, you can consult the family law and criminal advocates at Aapka Legal Advice. Experienced Top Criminal Lawyers in India| Aapka Legal Advice can seek in-camera or restricted hearings, use DV Act and Family Court privacy provisions, arrange mediation, seek anonymisation and sealing, and act against online defamation.

If you face threats, protection is available. Threatening a witness is punishable under Section 232 BNS, and criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS. Protection orders under Section 18 of the DV Act can prohibit contact. The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, approved in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India (2018), and Section 398 BNSS apply.

To sum up, an in-camera trial in a dowry harassment case is not automatic, because cruelty under Section 85 BNS and dowry offences fall outside Section 366(2) BNSS, unless sexual violence is charged. However, the criminal court can close proceedings under the proviso to Section 366(1) BNSS and its inherent power in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar. Related DV proceedings can be held in camera under Section 16 of the DV Act, Family Court proceedings under Section 11 of the Family Courts Act, mediation is confidential, and anonymisation, sealing, screens and video testimony are all available.

Your family's privacy deserves protection, and the right strategy can keep sensitive matters out of public view. With an experienced lawyer, and a retired judge's guidance where helpful, you can choose the right forum and act promptly. Take advice early, because a successful request for an in-camera trial in a dowry harassment case depends on clear reasons, the right forum and timely action.