Husband Demanding Money From Wife's Parents For Maintenance Of His Newly Born Baby Not 'Dowry': Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has observed that if the husband demands money from the paternal home of the wife for rearing and maintenance of his newly born child, such demand does not come within the fold of the definition of 'dowry' as per Section 2 (i) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

A bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed thus while allowing a revision plea filed by a husband challenging his conviction under Section 498A IPC [Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty] and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (Penalty for demanding dowry). 

The case in brief

The petitioner's (Husband) marriage with the opposite party no.2 (wife) was solemnised as per the Hindu rituals in 1994. Subsequently, they cohabited as spouses, and during their union, three children- two male children and one girl child were born. The girl child was born sometime in the year 2001.

The wife alleged that three years after their daughter's birth, the petitioner and his relatives demanded Rs.10,000 from her father to support and care for the girl child. It was also alleged that the wife was tortured for nonfulfillment of the demand of the petitioner and the other marital relations.

Challenging his conviction, the Husband moved the HC wherein his counsel argued that the allegation made by the wife against the petitioner (Husband) and other accused persons is general and omnibus in nature and hence, the order of his conviction was liable to be set aside.

High Court's observations 

Having heard the counsel for the parties as well as factoring into account the facts of the case, the Court noted that the only issue involved in the instant revision is as to whether any demand for proper maintenance of a child of the parties to a bride by the bride groom and his family members amounts to dowry or not.

To answer the query, the Court, examined Section 2 (i) of the 1961 Act (which defines Dowry) to note that the essential element of dowry is payment or demand of money, property or valuable security given or agreed to be given as consideration of marriage.

Furthermore, the court noted that Explanation (b) of Section 498A of the IPC does not explicitly mention the term 'dowry'. However, judicial precedents have established that harassment related to fulfilling any unlawful demand for property or valuable security should be regarded within the ambit of the definition of dowry as outlined in Section 2(i) of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Manju Ram Kalita Vs. State of Assam 2009, the Court noted that to establish a charge under Section 498A of the IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously and persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging of complaint.

Considering this context, upon examining the details of the case, the court observed that the wife's complaint and evidence indicated that the husband demanded Rs.10,000 for the maintenance of their daughter.

Furthermore, the Court noted that both husband and wife belong to marginalized social backgrounds where it is customary practice that daughters stay at their parental home during pregnancy until the child is born, and then the mother and child are usually sent to the matrimonial home when the child is three to six months old, with all expenses during this period being covered by the wife's family. 

In view of this fact of the matter, the Court observed that the demand of Rs. 10K was not made as a consideration of marriage between the complainant and the petitioner, and rather for the maintenance of the girl-child, and hence, the same would not come within the fold of the definition of 'dowry' as per the 1961 Act read with Section 498A IPC.

Consequently, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the lower court was set aside and the revision plea was allowed.

Case title - Naresh Pandit vs. The State Of Bihar and another 

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 32

Click Here to Read/Download Order