aatma 18 November 2008

Indian Judiciary Doest not Follow its Own Laws

DP act sections 3,4, and 5:

3. PENALTY FOR GIVING OR TAKING DOWRY. - 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 shall not be less than 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.

4. PENALTY FOR DEMANDING DOWRY.-If any person demands directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.

5. AGREEMENT FOR GIVING OR TAKING DOWRY TO BE VOID.-Any agreement for the giving or taking of dowry shall be void.

In most of the complaints it has been stated that before marriage dowry was demanded and bride's father AGREED to pay and did so. Then after marriage more dowry was demanded.......

Why police or court does not consider this section 5 of DP act? Just they blindly file DP4 (for demand only), even if they file DP3 (giving and taking) they exclude the dowry giver from the charges.

Usually the complainant says that dowry was demanded BEFORE MARRIAGE (during engagement or other occasion). No one can do cruelty against her before marriage for NOT AGREE TO PAY DOWRY TO MARRY HIM. Whether marry or not marry the dowry demander is her choice. She can rightaway file complaint to the police about the dowry demand. But she did not!

I believe still in india marriages are arranged by mutual understanding of two families and other formal family visits. No one kidnap the lady and demand dowry and force her to marry him. This is the fact. If so the bride's family knowingly and voluntarily involved in the dowry offence, they agreed to pay the dowry and did so.

Offence is offence, who ever commits, bride or bridegroom, before marriage or after marriage. Does not matter. Courts must have to see the "interest of justice" not the gender.

Why Dowry law does not punish the families who knowingly involved and encouraged the dowry offence before marriage by agreeing and giving. They are the first culprits, they support the offence in the first place and pave the way for the future crimes in the society, and make the groom's mind for future demand and crimes.

Almost all the complaints are lodged by well educated families/women. All educated persons in india know very well that dowry is an offence. How come they can escape from the offence they committed. Why police and courts are not considering this as a crime!

Laws are meant to study in the law books only! Not to provide justice to innocents.

Reply Follow

7 Replies

N.K.Assumi (Advocate) 18 November 2008

Dear Aatma Ji,

I beg to differ with your last paragraphs. It is not the fault of laws but those who administered them are at fault.

shashank manjrekar (Legal Consultant) 18 November 2008

I fully agree with N.K.Assumiji. Laws are always meant for justice provided they are administered properly.

K.C.Suresh (Advocate) 18 November 2008

Law stands right. But laws and in-laws are not. It is in depth in the society. Greed breed greed .

Every educated knows bibe giving attempt to give, abetment to give etc are illegal and prevented by law. but who cares. Same fate to DL.

aatma 19 November 2008

Who are the primary administers of law ?

In police stations-Police constable, SI, Inspector, ASP, DSP, SP................ In courts - lawyers, magistrates, and judges............

So the laws are not in fault, only the administers. They never want to administer the law properly to wipe out the crimes from the society?

Bribe - now it became an ornament of india. Howmany persons not faced "Bribe" atleast once in their entire life from "Cradle to Grave yard" ? If each citizen ask this question they will know "Bribe" is like an "Oxygen". Without it, no body can survive in india. www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/messages/2008/10/3092_bribary_in_india.asp

N.K.Assumi (Advocate) 19 November 2008

In courts it is the Judges who passed the judgment not the lawyers.

sangram (service) 19 November 2008

It is not the mistake of law, but of the police & the advocate who advocates from victim side also involved.

if the police fails to file any section, the advocate must have to raise the point, and should conveince the court how section 5 is also applicable to defendant.

The authorities who are administrating the law will be responsible for this.

Regards,

Sangram

aatma 27 November 2008

"Judges and lawyers part of orchestra of Indian judiciary"

https://www.hindu.com/2008/11/27/stories/2008112758540200.htm

MADURAI: Judges and lawyers were constituents of an orchestra of Indian judiciary. The entire concert of justice delivery system would go awry if any of them played fiddle, said K. Raviraja Pandian, Judge, Madras High Court.

In his Law Day address at the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Bar Association (MMBA) on Wednesday, he said: “I would like to urge all of you and every law conscious person to observe this day not as a ritual but as a day for introspection.”

The dignity of law and its omniscience was best articulated through the legal fraternity who had achieved the distinction of raising their voice against all manifestations of injustice perpetuated wheresoever and by whomsoever high, he observed.

He urged lawyers, judges and others to assess the surviving quality of rule of law and rededicate themselves to sustaining it and to chalk out methods to guard it from disparage and damage from any quarter.

Mr. Raviraja Pandian said that the sanctity of the fundamental duties, enshrined in the Constitution, was yet to be addressed in full form and interpreted in a manner making it a moral mandate for every individual to be observed and adhered to.

“Practically instances are starkly available where the non observance of these duties has resulted in gross and direct infringement upon the fundamental right of the citizens under Article 21 in its expanded parameters,” he said.

The most effective way to achieve individual, social, economic and political freedom was to read the fundamental rights, directive principles and fundamental duties in unison rather than giving too much importance to just one of them.

Sustenance of rule of law was not the life line of the judiciary alone. It was for the Legislature and Executive too as they were the places where the source of law emanated and set in motion in the interest of citizens at large.

Doubting the relevance of old English legal maxims, the Judge said: “I am of the opinion we must strive to ensure that the imperative of law should be, to adapt itself to the ever changing social, political and economic habitat of our country.”