Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Also known as Dowry Prohibition Act.
About the Dowry Prohibition Act
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was introduced to combat the ever-increasing menace of dowry, with the avowed object of prohibiting its giving and taking: Section 4 penalises demanding dowry, Section 5 makes an agreement to give or take it void, and under Section 6 the recipient holds dowry in trust for the woman (Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam, (2004) 3 SCC 199, para 13). The Section 2 definition, applied in dowry-death cases under Section 304B IPC, covers property or valuable security given or agreed to be given at, before or any time after the marriage in connection with it (Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477, para 7).
Sections
Key Judgments
Hearing a wife's petition to transfer her husband's divorce case from Jamui, Bihar to Ranchi, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the couple to mediation and, on their settlement, dissolved the marriage by mutual consent under Article 142 read with Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband paid Rs 33 lakh, and the dowry FIR, domestic violence, maintenance and other cases were quashed or withdrawn (paras 1-10).
The Supreme Court quashed a Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act case against a woman's parents-in-law, holding that the allegations against them were vague and omnibus, attributed no specific overt act, and had no support beyond her own complaint and her parents' statements (paras 25-26). Applying Bhajan Lal, Arti Mehta and Geddam Jhansi, it said criminal law must not reach every family member without a clear factual foundation (paras 16-17, 26). The case against the husband was untouched (para 27).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed a dowry case pending since 2013 against a woman's former parents-in-law. She had received Rs. 20 lakh as permanent alimony under the compromise on which her appeal against the divorce decree was dismissed, and had not appeared to testify since 2018. Keeping the prosecution going after settling the dispute only harassed the petitioners and was an abuse of process (paras 11-13, 18).
The Supreme Court restored the conviction of a husband and his mother for the 2001 dowry death of a young woman set on fire a day after a renewed demand for a colour TV, a motorcycle and Rs. 15,000. Holding that the High Court had misread the evidence, it called the eradication of dowry a constitutional imperative and issued directions on educational curricula, Dowry Prohibition Officers, training of police and judges, and the disposal of pending cases (paras 9, 24, 26).
The Supreme Court held that Section 304B IPC must receive a fair, pragmatic and common-sense interpretation, declared that Appasaheb and Vipin Jaiswal do not state the law correctly, and ruled that money demanded at any time that is reasonably connected to a married woman's death is in connection with the marriage (para 20). ‘Soon before’ her death is a relative expression and not ‘immediately before’ (paras 23, 25). The husband's conviction was upheld (para 26).
The Supreme Court held that a man who enters into a marital relationship and, under the colour of that status, subjects the woman to cruelty is a ‘husband’ for Sections 498A and 304B IPC, whatever the legitimacy of the marriage (para 18). It set aside the High Court's summary refusal of leave to appeal against an acquittal resting on the husband's undissolved first marriage, and remitted the matter for a hearing on merits (para 27).