Dowry Prohibition Act

The object in forming the Dowry Prohibition Act and adding provisions in the Indian Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian Evidence Act is to remove the evil of dowry system and give protection to women.

DOWRY RELATED ACTS

To prohibit the demanding, giving and taking of Dowry, the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is in force since 1st July 1961.

To stop the offences of cruelty by husband or his relatives on wife, Section 498-A has been added in the Indian Penal Code, and Section 198-A has been added in the Criminal Procedure Code since the year 1983.

In the case of suicide by a married woman, within 7 years from the date of her marriage, the Court may presume that such suicide has been abetted, encouraged by her husband or his relatives. Provision to this effect has been added in the Indian Evidence Act, by adding Section 113-A since the year 1983.

PROVISIONS OF Dowry Prohibition Act

Because of the Dowry Prohibition Act, a person who gives or takes, or helps in the giving or taking of dowry can be sentenced to jail for 5 years and fined Rs.15,000/- or the amount of the value of dowry, whichever is more. Because of the Dowry Prohibition Act, to give or to agree to give, directly or indirectly, any property or valuable security, in connection with a marriage is prohibited. The giving of or agreeing to the giving of any amount either in cash of kind, jewelry, articles, properties, etc. in respect of a marriage is absolutely prohibited by the Dowry prohibition Act.

Because of the Dowry Prohibition Act, even the making of a demand for dowry also is now prohibited and it is punishable with imprisonment of 5 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

Because of the Dowry Prohibition Act, now nobody can advertise to give money or share in his property as a consideration of the marriage.

Because of the Dowry Prohibition Act, an Agreement between the parties, to give or to take dowry, is considered as void and cannot be enforced in law and the person who has received dowry is liable to return it to the wife.

Genuine presents offered to the Bride or to the Bridegroom, at the time of the marriage, are however not prohibited by this Act. The giving of such presents however must be customary. The value of such presents, however, should not be excessive, compared to the financial status of the parties giving such presents. A list of such presents is also required to be maintained wherein the name of the person who has given the present, his relationship with the Bride or Bridegroom, description of the presents given and the value of the presents is to be mentioned and that list has to be signed by both the Bride and the Bridegroom.

The demanding of dowry itself is a cruel act and can be a ground of Divorce. A husband or his relatives can be punished for behaving cruelly with the wife by demanding dowry and can be sentenced for 3 years imprisonment and also fined. Harassment of a woman for dowry is now a criminal offence and ill treatment of a woman for dowry can also be punished.

On account of the Dowry Prohibition Act, a wife or her relatives can now take recourse of law and if dowry is demanded or a wife is harassed on account of dowry, the persons doing so can be punished.

GROUND REALITY

Unfortunately, despite all these legislations, ill treatment of women in our society still continues. The system of dowry, the evil of dowry still exists. Dowry deaths and Dowry suicides still happen every day. Pick up any newspaper and you will find a case of dowry death or a dowry suicide or harassment of a woman on account of dowry. What is surprising is, that such demand of dowry, such harassment for dowry, dowry deaths and dowry suicides are even found in the affluent and educated society. However, the purpose of legislature in making the Dowry Prohibition Act and amendments to other acts is not lost. On account of such laws, the evils of dowry have definitely come under control. Cases of harassment to wife have reduced and have come to light on account of these laws.

Few years ago, when these laws were not in force, particularly when the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 had not been enacted, there was no remedy for a harassed wife or her parents against the demand for dowry. The numerous cases about the dowry death or harassment on account of dowry which you now read in the Newspapers have come to light because of these laws. If these laws had not been made, a troubled wife or her relatives would not have been in a position to complain against the demand for dowry or the taking of dowry. The evil of dowry has definitely been brought under control to a very great extent by these laws and these laws definitely provide great relief to a wife.

Husbands, however, complain that these laws are being misused and that on account of these laws, wives or their parents make false complaints against the husband and his family members just to harass them. Many times, when a husband files a petition for divorce, the wife or her parents take recourse under the Dowry Prohibition Act and lodge false complaints, under that Act, against the husband or his parents, so as to pressurize the husband. Well, every coin has two sides. It cannot be denied that, at times, the Dowry Prohibition Act, is being misused. But this Law has certainly helped the bride and has reduced the evil of Dowry.

Unless there is a strong awareness in the minds of the people, unless the entire society believes that dowry is an evil, unless the entire society objects to the demand for dowry, unless every mother-in-law thinks that at one time she too was a daughter-in-law, unless every mother thinks that the treatment which she gives to her daughter-in-law can also be received by her own daughter, the evils of dowry will remain in society. The Law definitely helps to prevent the evil of dowry but to make the Law effective and fruitful, people should follow the Law and see that dowry demands are not made and dowry deaths do not occur. A word of advice: One should not treat Marriage as a lottery. After all "The Love of money is the root of all evil".

_____

Dowry Prohibition Act — a boon or bane?

THE STRINGENT provisions incorporated in the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 (Central Act) have been largely diluted. Recent amendments and rules framed under the Act by State governments reinforce this perception. Whether the teeth provided in the Act had been plucked off as the injustice caused by it was too much, or whether cases filed under the Act and put to test acted as a catalyst for a rethinking about the provisions is a moot point.

When the Bill was introduced in Parliament it was said that its object was `to prohibit the evil practice of giving and taking of dowry.' When a Bill was introduced to amend the Act of 1961, it was said that the evil of dowry had been a matter of serious concern in view of its ever increasing and disturbing proportions. Accordingly the Act of 1984 made some amendments in the Act of 1961.

Some women's voluntary organisations felt that the amendments were still inadequate. Hence the Amendment Act of 1986 further amended the 1961 Act. After the above two amendments, the Act became more stringent. The 1986 Act introduced new sections 8-A and 8-B. Sec. 8-A says that the burden of proving that one has not committed offence u/s. 3 (giving or taking of dowry or any abetment towards it) and u/s. 4 (demanding dowry) is on the person charged.

However, the Supreme Court (AIR 1996 SC 2184) has held that conviction cannot be based on such presumptions without offence being proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The amendments and Sec. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were introduced presupposing that only genuinely aggrieved women would lodge complaints and that they would invariably tell the truth.

Victims of false cases

Some victims of false cases formed associations and expressed concern over the arrest of the accused husband, his family members and even remote relatives without proper investigation, and money mongering by wife and her relatives led to suicides by many men.

Recently a retired Assistant Director of Prosecution and his wife committed suicide fearing harassment as they were alleged to have committed offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act. A men's welfare organisation functioning in Karnataka made an appeal that punitive punishment should be imposed on those responsible for giving false complaints besides awarding costs and damages to the victims; that tax payer should not be made to pay for mala fide and frivolous complaints; that the process of courts should not be used for settling personal vendetta; that Sec. 498-A of the IPC and the amended Dowry Prohibition Act, which were meant to prevent the victimisation of women, were being increasingly misused by women to blackmail, victimise and harass innocent husbands and their relatives.

When the Dowry Prohibition Act was sought to be amended in 1986, Parliament with a view to checking the misuse of the Act, introduced Sec. 8-B which deals with appointment of dowry prohibition officers by State governments.

The Supreme Court in a number of judgments asked the State governments and Union Territories to immediately frame rules for appointment of dowry prohibition officers under the Act.

The Punjab Government (Act 26 of 1976) substituted Sec. 7 of the Act to the effect that no police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police shall investigate any offence punishable under the Act or make arrest thereof. Himachal Pradesh has also substituted the provision as above.

Punjab inserted Sec. 8-A as hereunder:

"8-A Institution of Proceedings: No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence committed under this Act without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate or of such officer as the State government may by special or general order appoint in this behalf."

The government of Tamil Nadu also framed the Tamil Nadu Dowry Prohibition Officers and Advisory Board Rules 1998. Dowry prohibition officers were invested with the powers of police officers as per rule 4 of the above Rules.

Tamil Nadu gave more powers to dowry prohibition officers and to stop misuse of the Act, brought in new rules called Tamil Nadu Dowry Prohibition Rules 2004 in supersession of the Tamil Nadu Dowry Prohibition Officers and Advisory Board Rules 1998.

The Tamil Nadu Dowry Prohibition Rules define police officer as Deputy Superintendent of Police of the division concerned. In Rule 3 it is said that dowry prohibition officers shall exercise jurisdiction and powers u/s. 8-B of the Act. Dowry prohibition officers' approach as defined in the Rules is primarily preventive and remedial and for prosecution he can only recommend. Rule 7 further says that dowry prohibition officers shall submit a report before a competent magistrate and the report shall be deemed to be a report u/s. 173 of CrPC.

I do not think in any other statute in India, it has been mentioned that an enquiry should be conducted to collect such evidence from the parties as to the genuineness of the complaint. When the Rule 5 (X) insists that the dowry prohibition officers shall scrutinise the complaint and collect evidence from the parties as to the genuineness of the complaint, we can read between the lines a lot. Moreover, it insists that evidence should be collected from the parties, which means not only on the complainant side but also on the respondent side.

While disposing of a petition, the High Court of Madras (Justice A.K. Rajan) has said:

"It is true that demand of dowry, which originally prevailed among a small sect of people, has not pervaded the entire society due to the educational advancement. Further, due to the constant attempts by various organisations women started complaining about dowry harassment to the police. Of course, it is a healthy sign. But at the same time, it is not uncommon that while such complaints of dowry harassment are made, even innocent in-laws are arrayed as accused. When such false complaints are made, some people, unable to bear such false accusations, go to the extent of committing suicide. This has to be taken note of by the authorities concerned and there must be restraint regarding such complaints against in-laws."

______