Upgrad LLM

giving dowry is crime?

service

hi

if father in law and mother in law file a divorce notice saying they had given gold , furniture and household as dowry. as per law are they liable for punishment under dowry act. any citation where they were punished or only husband and his family are punished even if it false case.

 
Reply   
 
advocate

Yes both families are liable to be punished according to law. Let case law be cited by learned members.

 
Reply   
 


Consultant

first be lear in ur posting, how can father in law and mother in law give u a divorce notice ? wat u exactly want to say be clear.

 
Reply   
 
propra

If it is proved that dowry  transaction has happened then ....................

 

 

........if it is proved that ...boy's side demanded dowry for marriage (saying that boy has a 'good market' value!! than girls's standing the marriage market!!...) and then girl's side is made to pay reluctantly .................then boy's side is liable to be punished.

 

 

........if it is proved that ...girl's side offerred dowry in marriage to 'price-up' the girl in the marriage market!!!  (maal ko khapawane ke liye!!) ............. then girl's side is NOT liable to be punished.


Total likes : 2 times

 
Reply   
 
UNEMPLOYED

IT IS IN PAPER ONLY

 
Reply   
 
UNEMPLOYED

giving dowry is crime?

YES.

FIL, MIL CAN NOT GIVE DIVORCE NOTICE.

YOUR MATTER NOT CLEAR. WHAT YOUR WIFE SAYS?

IS SHE ABSCONDED OR UNDER ARREST BY HER FATHER.

 
Reply   
 
Senior Partner

@ Author

Agreeing to que. raised by Avnisah my larger public opinion is that all Laws are quite sufficient in more or less in their present format. Only thing lacking are their 'proper' implementation. Views are ok, all dependent upon peculiar facts of each case.

 

 
Reply   
 
HASEENA MIL JAYEGEE!!!

@ Jamai of law

What did you mean by maal  in 

 (maal ko khapawane ke liye!!) ..???


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 

 I agree with parents-in-law do not have any power to issue Divorce Notice.

                 Yet the requisite Judgment of Delhi High court is given below... for perusal and n/a

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 12.02.2007 Date of Decision: February 23, 2007

CRL.M.C.7262/2006 23.02.2007

Smt. Neera Singh….. Petitioner

Through:Mr. L.B. Rai and Mr. V.K. Singh, Advocates

Versus

THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) and ORS…..Respondents

Through: Mr. Vikas Arora, Advocate for respondent

Ms. Richa Kapoor with Ms. Sukriti Bhardwaj, Advocates for State.

 

 CORAM: JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

 

1.            Whether repoters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES.

2.            To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES.

3.            Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES.

 

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA , J.

 

1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been made on behalf of petitioner for quashing/setting aside the order dated 20th July, 2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the learned ASJ upheld the order of the Trial Court discharging appellants Bishan Pal Singh, Smt. Santosh Devi, Gajendar Singh and Toshan Singh. Bishan Pal Singh is the father-in-law of the complainant, Smt. Santosh Devi is the mother-in-law of complainant and Gajender Singh and Toshan Singh are the brothers-in-law (husband’s brothers) of the complainant. The complainant made allegations involving almost every member of the family of her in laws. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after going through the evidence observed as under:

    

Perusal of record shows that the allegations of the complainant are against the accused person except the accused husband with respect of taunting for bringing insufficient dowry. But there is not a single allegation that the accused persons made any subsequent demand for dowry and consequent harassment for not meeting with their demands. Admittedly the complainant and her husband and in laws of the complainant were staying at Ghaziabad. Whereas the complainant most of the time resided with her husband at Riwari. It was held in AIR 1996(Supreme Court) 67 that taunting for not bringing sufficient dowry is distinct from demand of dowry and should not be confused with. Though taunting for bringing insufficient dowry is also an uncivilized act but does not come within the purview of Section 498A, sufficient to constitute the offence i.e. the cruelty to the complainant with respect to not fulfillment of demand of  dowry. There is not a single allegation that except for the alleged taunting the complainant was ever harassed with respect to further demand of dowry. Hence the prima facie case under Section 498A is not made out against accused Bishan Pal, Santosh Devi, Gazender Singh and Kaushan Singh.

 

2. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire material observed as under ? In the present case, husband, Yashwant Singh, after marriage was residing separately from his parent and brothers. He was residing at Rewari, Haryana. The Ld. Trial Court found that allegation of the complainant are against the husband only. There were no specific allegations against the accused persons, namely, Bishan Pal Singh, Smt. Santosh Devi, Gajender Singh and Toshan Singh. The Ld. Trial Court was of the opinion that there was not even a single allegation that the accused persons made any subsequent demand of dowry and harassed the complainant for not fulfilling their demand. The complainant most of the time was residing with her husband at Rewari, Haryana. There might have been one or two instances of taunting for not bringing sufficient dowry but they are not sufficient enough to attract Section 498A. There are not specific allegations with respect to entrustment of dowry items to the accused persons. Since, the complainant stayed with her husband at Rewari, Haryana, the entrustment of dowry articles can be presumed to be to the husband. There were no specific allegations of entrustment to the accused person, namely, Bishan Pal Singh, Smt. Santosh Devi, Gajender Singh and Toshan Singh.?

 

3. A perusal of the complaint would show that as per allegations dowry demand was made even before marriage i.e. at the time of engagement and an AC was demanded from her father by her in-laws and her father had assured that AC would be given at the time of marriage. However, she told her father “You have given car and AC at the demand of in laws, what will happen if they demand a flat tomorrow?”. Despite her this conversation with her father and despite her knowing that dowry demand had already been made, she married in the same family irrespective of the fact that she was well-educated lady and was an engineer and her brother was in police. In fact, these kinds of allegations made after breakdown of the marriage show the mentality of the complainant. I consider where these kinds of allegations are made, the police should simultaneously register a case under Dowry Prohibition Act (in short, the Act) against the parents of the complainant as well, who married their daughter despite demand of dowry. Section 3 of the Act prohibits giving and taking of dowry. If a woman of grown up age and well educated gets married to a person despite dowry demand, she and her family becomes accomplice in the crime under Dowry Prohibition Act.

 

4. Now-a-days, exorbitant claims are made about the amount spent on marriage and other ceremonies and on dowry and gifts. In some cases claim is made of spending crores of rupees on dowry without disclosing the source of income and how funds flowed. I consider time has come that courts should insist upon disclosing source of such funds and verification of income from tax returns and police should insist upon the compliance of the Rules under Dowry Prohibition Act and should not entertain any complaint, if the rules have not been complied with. Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of List of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 reads as under: ?

 

2. RULES IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH LISTS OF PRESENTS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED.-(1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bride shall be maintained by the bride.

(2)The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bridegroom shall be maintained by the bridegroom.

(3)Every list of presents referred to in Sub-rule(1) or Sub-rule(2)-

 (a) shall be prepared at the time of the marriage or as soon as possible after the marriage;

(b)   shall be in writing;

 (c)  shall contain:-

(i)    a brief descripttion of each present;

(ii)   the approximate value of the present;

(iii)  the name of the person who has given the present; and

(iv)  where the person giving the present is related to the bride or bridegroom, a

       descripttion of such relationship.

(d)  shall be signed by both the bride and the bridegroom.

 

5. The Metropolitan Magistrates should take cognizance of the offence under the Act in respect of the offence of giving dowry whenever allegations are made that dowry was given as a consideration of marriage, after demand. Courts should also insist upon compliance with the rules framed under the Act and if rules are not complied with, an adverse inference should be drawn. If huge cash amounts are alleged to be given at the time of marriage which are not accounted anywhere, such cash transactions should be brought to the notice of the Income Tax Department by the Court so that source of income is verified and the person is brought to law. It is only because the Courts are not insisting upon compliance with the relevant provisions of law while entertaining such complaints and action is taken merely on the statement of the complainant, without any verification that a large number of false complaints are pouring in.

 

6. I consider that the kinds of vague allegations as made in the complaint by the petitioner against every member of the family of husband cannot be accepted by any court at their face value and the allegations have to be scrutinized carefully by the Court before framing charge. A perusal of the complaint of the petitioner would show that she made all kinds of allegations against her husband regarding beating, that her husband was having illicit relationship with 35 girls; he forced her to write suicide note, abused her, taunted her, threatened and told her that he was getting another bride of more richer family while she was in Rewari with her husband and she made telephone call to her parents who came to Rewari and took her to parental home. She had also given phone to one of her friends Jigyasa. A perusal of the statement of Jigyasa would show that she told Jigyasa that it was her husband who was torturing her and behaving with cruelty. However, in her complaint, she made vague and omnibus allegations against every other family members. The statement made by her and other witnesses have been scrutinized by me, except vague allegations and allegations of taunting, there are no allegations of perpetuating cruelty on her by any of the four respondents in order to compel her to bring more dowry or any particular items.

 

                  In view of my foregoing discussion, I find no reason to disagree with the order of two Courts below. The petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

Feburary 23, 2007                                                                   SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA.J.

rd

 
Reply   
 

By virtue of Section 7(3) of the D.P. Act, the dowry givers are not punishable.  This is Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's decision and it took  into consideration of the above said judgment posted by Mr. Chhabra.

W.P.(Crl.) No.501/2010 Page 1 of 8

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: September 30, 2010

Judgment delivered on: October 20, 2010

+ W.P.(CRL.) NO. 501/2010 & CRL.M.A. 3921/2010(stay)

POOJA SAXENA ....PETITIONER

Through: Mr.Vijay Aggarwal with Mr.Rakesh

Mukhija and Mr.Gurpreet Singh,

Advocates.

Versus

STATE & ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS

Through: Ms. Meera Bhatia, ASC for the State with

Mr.Roshan Kumar, Advocate with I.O. S.I.

Mr.Prabhanshu, P.S. Roop Nagar.

Mr.Abhishek Gupta, Advocate for

R.2/Sameer Saxena.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE

1. Whether Reporters of local papers

may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be

reported in Digest ?

AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.

1. Pooja Saxena, the petitioner herein, vide instant writ petition under Articles

226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure is seeking direction for quashing of the order of learned

W.P.(Crl.) No.501/2010 Page 2 of 8

ACMM dated 10.03.2010 as well as FIR No.59/2010 dated 22.03.2010 registered

at P.S. Roop Nagar pursuant to the aforesaid order of learned ACMM.

2. Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the

petitioner Pooja Saxena filed a complaint of dowry demand and harassment

against her husband (respondent No.2) with CAW Cell and on the basis of the

said complaint, after preliminary inquiry and on the recommendation of the senior

police officer, an FIR No.232/2009 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC was

registered against respondent No.2 Sameer Saxena and others at P.S. Roop

Nagar.

3. Petitioner Pooja Saxena in her above referred complaint alleged that at the

time of her marriage, her parents had given sufficient amount of cash and

valuable articles including jewellery, Swift car, Sony TV, washing machine,

double bed and gift items to respondent No.2 and his relatives. It was also

alleged in the complaint that at the time of her engagement ceremony on

20.08.2006, father of respondent No.2 raised a demand for a Sony TV besides

cash/gifts for the relatives as also gold ornaments, diamond jewellery and clothes

etc. for the sister-in-law of the respondent as also her two daughters. Father of

the petitioner fulfilled the said demands but the father-in-law of the petitioner was

not satisfied and he raised a demand for a car of a prestigious brand or in the

alternative asked for a deposit of `5 lakhs as a corpus to enable them to

purchase a car. He suggested that the car should be purchased in the name of

the petitioner, failing which he would not go on with the marriage which may

W.P.(Crl.) No.501/2010 Page 3 of 8

cause harassment to the parents of the petitioner and create difficulty in finding a

match for the marriage of the younger sister of the petitioner.

4. Respondent No.2 Sameer Saxena, as a counterblast to the aforesaid FIR,

filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking direction for registration of

FIR under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 against the petitioner and

learned ACMM, vide order dated 10.03.2010 directed the SHO, P.S. Roop Nagar

to register an FIR on the basis of the allegations made in the petition under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and investigate the matter in accordance with law.

5. Respondent No.2 in his petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. contended

that the petitioner in her complaint to CAW Cell, which formed basis for

registration of FIR No.232/2009 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC P.S. Roop

Nagar, as well as in her petition Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and in her

petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 made categoric

allegations that demand of dowry as a precondition to marriage was made by the

husband and in-laws of the petitioner and pursuant to that demand huge dowry

was given which, prima facie, amounts to admission of commission of an offence

under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by the petitioner and her

parents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that registration of the

aforesaid FIR No.59/2010 pursuant to the petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

moved by respondent No.2, which obviously is a counterblast to the FIR

W.P.(Crl.) No.501/2010 Page 4 of 8

registered on the complaint of the petitioner, is a gross abuse of process of law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 7(3) of the Dowry

Prohibition Act and contended that aforesaid provision of the Act provides for the

protection from prosecution to the person aggrieved by the offence under the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as such the learned ACMM ought not to have

directed the registration of the FIR. No.59/2010. Thus, he has strongly urged for

the quashing of the FIR No.59/2010 registered pursuant to the impugned order

dated 10.03.2010 of the learned ACMM.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has argued in

favour of the impugned order of the learned ACMM dated 10.03.2010 and

submitted that learned ACMM has rightly ordered registration of FIR No.59/2010

on the basis of allegations in the petition of the respondent under Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C. for the reason that as per Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,

giving of dowry is also prohibited and is a punishable offence. Learned counsel

for the respondent, in support of this contention has relied upon the judgment of

this Court in the matter of Neera Singh Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) &

Ors, 138 (2007), Delhi Law Times 152.

8. In order to properly appreciate the submissions made by the respective

parties, it would be useful to have a look upon Section 3 as well as Section 7(3)

of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which are reproduced thus:

3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.- (1)] If any person,

after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or

taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which

W.P.(Crl.) No.501/2010 Page 5 of 8

shall not be less than [(Note: Subs. by Act 43 of 1986, Sec.3) five years, and

with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount

of the value of such dowry, whichever is more:]

Provided that the Court may, for a adequate and special reasons to be

recorded in he judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of a term of

less than [(Note: Subs. by Act 43 of 1986, Sec.3) five years.]

(2) [(Note: Ins. by Act 63 of 1984, sec.3) Nothing is sub section (1) shall

apply to, or in relation to, -

(a) Presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without

any demand having been made in that behalf).

(b) Presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom

(without any demand having been made in that behalf).

Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance

with the rules made under this Act.

Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the

bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary

nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial

status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.

7. Cognizance of offences

……………….

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in

force, a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not

subject such person to a prosecution under this Act.

9. No doubt, as per Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, giving or abetting

to give dowry is a punishable offence, but the petitioner does have protection of

Section 7(3) of the Act. Section 7(3) provides that notwithstanding anything

contained in any law for the time being in force, a statement made by the person

aggrieved by the offence under the Act shall not subject him to prosecution under

this Act. In the instant case, it is obvious that respondent No.2 has filed his

petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. only on the basis of the allegations made

by the petitioner Pooja Saxena in her complaint made to CAW Cell which formed

basis for the registration of FIR No.232/2009 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC

W.P.(Crl.) No.501/2010 Page 6 of 8

against respondent No.2 and others as well as in her petition under Hindu

Marriage Act and Domestic Violence Act. Thus, it is clear that FIR No.59/2010

registered against the petitioner under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961 is based upon the statements made by the petitioner in her complaint to

CAW Cell and above noted petitions. Therefore, she is entitled to the protection

of Section 7(3) of the Act, being the victim of demand of dowry.

10. In the case of Neera Singh (supra) relied upon by the respondent No.2,

the order of Additional Sessions Judge upholding the order of discharge of

accused persons passed by the Magistrate in a case under Section 498A/406

IPC was under challenge and the petitioner had sought quashing of said order.

While deciding said issue, this court, taking note of Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition

Act 1961 and the rules framed thereunder made following observations:-

3. A perusal of the complaint would show that as per allegations

dowry demand was made even before marriage i.e. at the time of

engagement and an AC was demanded from her father by her in-laws

and her father had assured that AC would be given at the time of

marriage. However, she told her father You have given car and AC at

the demand of in laws, what will happen if they demand a flat

tomorrow?. Despite her this conversation with her father and despite

her knowing that dowry demand had already been made, she married

in the same family irrespective of the fact that she was well-educated

lady and was an engineer and her brother was in police. In fact, these

kinds of allegations made after breakdown of the marriage show the

mentality of the complainant. I consider where these kinds of

allegations are made, the police should simultaneously register a case

under Dowry Prohibition Act (in short the 'Act') against the parents of

the complainant as well, who married their daughter despite demand

of dowry. Section 3 of the Act prohibits giving and taking of dowry. If a

woman of grown up age and well educated gets married to a person

W.P.(Crl.) No.501/2010 Page 7 of 8

despite dowry demand, she and her family becomes accomplice in the

crime under Dowry Prohibition Act.

………….

5. The Metropolitan Magistrates should take cognizance of the offence

under the Act in respect of the offence of giving dowry whenever

allegations are made that dowry was given as a consideration of

marriage, after demand. Courts should also insist upon compliance

with the rules framed under the Act and if rules are not complied with,

an adverse inference should be drawn. If huge cash amounts are

alleged to be given at the time of marriage which are not accounted

anywhere, such cash transactions should be brought to the notice of

the Income Tax Department by the Court so that source of income is

verified and the person is brought to law. It is only because the Courts

are not insisting upon compliance with the relevant provisions of law

while entertaining such complaints and action is taken merely on the

statement of the complainant, without any verification that a large

number of false complaints are pouring in.

11. The above observation of this Court obviously is an obiter and does not

constitute a binding precedent for the reason that the provisions of the Dowry

Prohibition Act 1961 were not the subject-matter of the dispute before the court in

the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Neera Singh’s case. Moreover, in the

aforesaid judgment, the Court has not taken into account the protection given to a

victim of offence of dowry demand as provided under Section 7(3) of the Dowry

Prohibition Act 1961. Thus, in my view the above referred judgment is of no avail

to respondent No.2. Further, on perusal of FIR No.232/2009, it transpires that as

per the allegations in the complaint made by the petitioner, the demand for dowry

was made by the father of respondent No.2 at the time of engagement ceremony

of the petitioner when he allegedly asked the father of the petitioner to concede to

W.P.(Crl.) No.501/2010 Page 8 of 8

his demand for dowry, failing which he would call off the marriage. From the

aforesaid facts, it is obvious that the petitioner and her parents were confronted

with the unenviable situation either to concede to the demand or face the loss of

honour of their family in the society, and if under that fear, the petitioner and her

parents conceded to the demand for dowry, they cannot be faulted as they were

victims of the circumstances. Given the aforesaid facts, Section 7(3) comes to

the rescue of the petitioner and in terms of the aforesaid provision, she cannot be

subjected to prosecution for the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961.

12. In view of the above, I find it difficult to sustain the impugned order dated

10.03.2010 of learned ACMM vide which he has directed registration of FIR

against the petitioner herein ignoring the protection extended to the petitioner

under Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Accordingly, the impugned

order of learned ACMM and the FIR registered in furtherance of said order are

hereby quashed.

13. The petition stands disposed of.

(AJIT BHARIHOKE)

JUDGE

OCTOBER 20, 2010

pst/ks


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

CrPC MASTERCLASS!     |    x