Any demand relatable only to marriage will come within the mischief of dowry

Any demand for money, property or valuable security made from the bride or her parents or other relatives by the bridegroom or his parents or other relatives or vice versa in connection with the marriage will fall within the mischief of “dowry' under the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Supreme Court has held.

A Bench of Justices Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha said “The mere demand for ‘dowry' before marriage, at the time of marriage or any time after the marriage is an offence. The 1961 Act has been amended by Parliament on more than one occasion and by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986, Parliament brought in stringent provisions and provided for offence relating to dowry death.”

The Bench upheld a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court confirming seven-year imprisonment awarded by a trial court to Bachni Devi and her son for causing the death of Kanta, wife of the second appellant, after their demand for a motorcycle for development of his business was not met by the victim's father, Pale Ram, a rickshawman.

Writing the judgment, Justice Lodha rejected the contention of the appellants, that the demand for a motorcycle for development of business would not come within the ambit of dowry.

The Bench said the term ‘dowry' “is defined comprehensively to include properties of all sorts as it takes within its fold ‘any property or valuable security' given or agreed to be given in connection with a marriage either directly or indirectly to be given or demanded ‘as consideration for the marriage'.”

Any demand which was not properly referable to any legally recognised claim and was relatable only to the consideration of marriage would come within the ambit of ‘dowry' under the Act.

“The Act is a piece of social legislation which aims to check the growing menace of the social evil of dowry and it makes punishable not only the actual receiving of dowry but also the very demand for dowry made before or at the time or after the marriage where such demand is referable to the consideration of marriage. Dowry as a quid pro quo for marriage is prohibited to be understood as it is defined in Section 2 of the Act.”

From the facts of the case, it was clearly established that Kanta died other than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and she was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment by the appellants after Pale Ram refused to accede to their demand, the Bench said.

Dismissing the appeal, it directed Bachni Devi to surrender herself for undergoing the sentence. Her son is already in jail.