Giving Dowry An Offence But Bride & Family Admittedly Defy This Law And Go Unpunished Because Of Bar In Law, Alarming: Allahabad High Court

In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court has elucidated on provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999 and observed that groom and his family are being prosecuted under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 merely based on the statements made by the bride and her family. However, due to the bar under Section 7(3), no action is being taken against the bride and her family for giving the dowry which is also an offence under Section 3 of the Act.Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that “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.”Justice Vikram D. Chauhan held that even though persons cannot be prosecuted based on statements made regarding giving dowry, they are still offenders under Section 3 of the Act. The Court held that in such circumstances, sole reliance being placed on the statement of the person giving the dowry is unjust and unfair. There must be other evidence to corroborate the allegations of dowry including sources of income and disclosures under Income Tax Act. Observing that the punishment of demand of dowry is extendable upto 2 years whereas punishment for receiving dowry is not less than years, the Court held that in order to get the groom and his family prosecuted with higher punishment, false allegations might be made in statements by the bride and her family when there is no other corroborative evidence. Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999 mandates submission of list of presents received by the parties to a marriage before the Dowry Prohibition Officer within one month from the date of the marriage prepared in accordance with the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985. Rule 6(8) of the Rules provides that the Dowry Prohibition Officer has to make entries of the list provided under Rule 10 in a register which is to be maintained for the said purpose. The Court observed that several cases were coming before the Court where no list under the Act or Rules had been maintained and no action was being taken by the authorities to ensure the compliance of the provisions. It was observed that while registering FIRs under the Act, the Investigating Officers were not inquiring into the lists which mandated under the Dowry Prohibition Rules. “If the aforesaid list is maintained then it would assist the investigating officer as well as courts to assess as to which of presents during marriage would come in the exception provided under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Prima facie, this Court feels that the Dowry Prohibition Officer are not following the direction of law as they are not ensuring that the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Rules framed there under are followed in letter and spirit by parties to marriage.”The Court held that the Government Order dated 17.05.2024 which directed that the list of presents as per the Rules of 1985 shall be submitted at the time of registration of marriage, was an important step in the eradication of dowry from society as it would also prevent false implication of the groom and his family members due to matrimonial disputes that arose after marriage. The Court made note of Rule 5 (5) A of the Rules of 1999 which provided that the Chief Dowry Prohibition Officer was to issue instructions to all the departments of the State Government mandating every government servant to declare his marriage to his head of Department, stating that he had not taken any dowry.The Court stated that in consideration of the above, on 16.02.2024, the Director, Women Welfare had issued instruction to various government departments for the complying with Rule 5 (5) A of the Rules of 1999 and directed that 26th November was to be celebrated as “Dowry Prohibition Day”.The Court held that as per Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1999, the Dowry Prohibition Officer was to try to create an awareness amongst the public about the evils of dowry by providing information through a variety of media and by involving individuals to prevent the atrocities caused by dowry. The Court made note of the fact that the eradication of the practice of dowry had been slow despite the Dowry Prohibition Act being enacted in the year 1961. The Court noted that Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 provided for the procedure for filing complaints in respect of offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Rule 8 provided the procedure for prosecution of the offences provided. It was held that as per Section 8B of the Act, one of the functions of the Dowry Prohibition Officer was to collect evidence that would be necessary for the prosecution of person committing offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act. Additionally, Section 8B (3) of the Act empowered the State Government by notification in the official ...

Giving Dowry An Offence But Bride & Family Admittedly Defy This Law And Go Unpunished Because Of Bar In Law, Alarming: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Giving Dowry An Offence But Bride & Family Admittedly Defy This Law And Go Unpunished Because Of Bar In Law, Alarming: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers