Hi All,
In the above news printed by a daily they have printed the names of Boy & his Family members names. Girls family them selves agree that they have given 2 lakhs as DOWRY.No fool is going to give money if they don’t find it worthfull.They want their daughter to get married in a Financially strong & well settled Family in Financial Capital like Mumbai.Why this News paper has not printed the name of this BRAVE Girl & their Family members because this family did a innovative act,No they want to increase their popularity of their paper,It’s a modern stategy. Yes everyone has the Right to expose the facts before the Society and Law.But the girl’s family should have denied to give 2 lakh’s as they are against Dowry they should have stooped the relation as there was a demand for money in the early stages. They might have bribed the police to file a case against the Boy’s family and now they will ask huge amounts to settle it down.Now the girl’s family will be in search of a new victim after this settlement…….
We can refer to these Judgment’s :
Dowry givers should also be prosecuted: Court
New Delhi, Jun 27 (PTI)
Observing that the anti-dowry law has been reduced to a ''paper tiger'' due to the bride's family giving away dowry in many cases, a court here said they also need to be prosecuted like the groom's family to eliminate the social evil.
"Dowry is a two way traffic and unless there is a giver there can be no taker and it is for this reason that in order to eliminate this evil both the giver and taker have been made liable (under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act)," Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau said.
"It is not possible to leave one and book another," the court said while resenting the prevalent practice of the bride's family giving dowry.
"It is unfortunate that this legislation has been reduced to a mere paper tiger and what is more unfortunate is the fact that it is none else but the family of the woman (involved in the marriage) who is responsible for non-accomplishment of this legislation," the court said.It further said the social welfare legislation meant to remove the evil of dowry should be implemented effectively.
"Dowry is shamelessly demanded, given and received under the pretext of social compulsions. It is time that this social welfare legislation (Dowry Prohibition Act) is ruthlessly implemented and none is permitted to take the shield of social compulsions. This has become all the more necessary in order to check the misuse and abuse of Special Laws," ASJ Lau said.
The court also said the expensive gifts given by relatives to a couple before and after marriage must be brought to the notice of authorities for levying taxes.It passed the observations while dismissing a plea of a woman seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against her family for giving dowry, which came following a complaint by her husband who faced dowry harassment charges.
In the case, Uma Devi, estranged wife of Sunil Garg, had challenged the order passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate in October last year directing registration of an FIR against her family members for giving dowry during her marriage in April 2008.The magistrate had ordered registration of the FIR on Garg's complaint referring to her admission of giving gifts and money to his family.
Source : Deccan Herald, https://www.deccanherald.com/content/77747/dowry-givers-should-prosecuted-court.html
No conviction for mere demand of dowry: SC
The Supreme Court has ruled that a person cannot be convicted for merely demanding dowry unless the demand is followed by mental or physical torture resulting in the death of the victim.
A Bench of Justices R M Lodha and A K Patnaik said in a judgement that the prosecution has to establish convincing evidence that the accused had subjected the victim to torture soon before her death in connection with the demand.
"The evidence of Prosecution Witness-2, PW-4 and PW-5 shows that Jagdish and Gordhani played a role in the demand of dowry for a scooter or Rs.25,000/ for Amar Singh but demand of dowry by itself is not an offence under Section 498A or Section 304B IPC".
"What is punishable under Section 498A or Section 304B of IPC is the act of cruelty or harassment by the husband or the relative of the husband against the woman," the Bench said.
The Bench passed the judgement while upholding the acquittal of Gordhani, mother-in-law, and Jagdish, brother-in-law, in a dowry death case of newly-married woman Santosh in Rajasthan's Alwar district in 8th March, 1993.
It however, upheld the conviction of the husband Amar Singh.
The sessions court had convicted all the three for dowry death(304B) and 498A(harassment of married woman by husband/relatives).
The Rajasthan High Court had on an appeal from the accused quashed the conviction of Jagdish and Gordhari while sustaining the life sentence imposed on Amar Singh.
While the state government had appealed against the acquittals, Amar Singh challenged his conviction.
Regards,
Mallik
