27-year-old Rithanya had committed suicide in July last year, over alleged dowry harassment. She had married Kavin Kumar three months before her death and had allegedly complained to her parents that her husband and his family had been harassing her mentally and physically over dowry and other issues. The final report has been filed for offences under Sections 85 and 108 of the BNS along with Sections 3(1) of and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan took note of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as per which the property given as dowry is to be returned and where the woman entitled to that property has died before receiving it, her legal heirs will be entitled to claim it. As per the section, if the women had no children, the dowry property will be transferred to the parents.

The court noted that in the present case, Rithanya had no children, and thus the entire dowry which was given as to Kavin at the time of marriage should have been recovered as per the Act.

“It is clear that whatever the dowry received at the time of marriage or after the marriage or before marriage, shall be transferred to the parents of the deceased if there are no children invovled. In the case on hand, admittedly, the deceased had no children through the first accused. Therefore, the entire dowry weighing 100 sovereigns of gold, Volvo car which was given as dowry to the first accused ought to have been recovered by the fourth respondent,” the court said.

The court made the observations on a petition filed by Rithanya's father Annadurai against the docket order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, rejecting his plea for return of property. The Magistrate had returned the plea on the ground that no jewels were seized from the accused and that it was not deposited before the trial court.

It was submitted that the investigating officer had failed to recover the jewels which were given as dowry and though he had furnished CCTV footage along with audio, the Inspector of Police failed to consider the same.

The court agreed with the father and noted that the police had failed to recover the dowry articles. The court noted that though the Revenue Divisional Officer had given a report that there was no dowry demand, there was clinching evidence to show that the offence had been clearly attracted. The court also noted that the final report had also been filed for dowry harassment and the only failure was with respect of non-recovery of jewels.

Thus, the court directed the officer to recover the dowry articles and hand it over to Rithanya's father.

Rithanya's father had also filed a plea seeking appointment of a new investigating officer to investigate the matter and to conduct further investigation in the case. The court however noted that the committal proceedings were over and the trial court had taken cognisance of the offence. Thus, the court was not inclined to order further investigation.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. B Mohan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. Dinesh, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)