Dowry & Traditional Presents Given At Time Of Marriage Aren't Presumed To Be Entrusted To Bride's Parents-In-Law: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that it cannot be assumed that dowry and traditional presents given at the time of marriage are entrusted to the parents-in-law of the bride and would attract the ingredients of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act provides that any dowry received by a person other than the woman in connection with her marriage must be transferred to her within the specified period. It further states that such dowry, until transferred, is to be held in trust for the benefit of the woman. Failure to transfer is punishable with imprisonment and/or fine.
“In Bobbili Ramakrishna Raja Yadad & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, this Court has held that giving dowry and traditional presents at the time of the wedding does not raise a presumption that such articles are thereby entrusted to the parents in-law so as to attract the ingredients of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961”, the Court observed.
A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol made this observation while quashing an FIR filed by the father of a divorced woman seeking the recovery of her 'stridhan'—gifts and ornaments given at the time of marriage—from her former in-laws. A charge sheet was filed for offence under Section 406 of the IPC (criminal breach of trust) and under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The Supreme Court found that apart from the complainant's statement, there was nothing on record to substantiate the claim that the appellants were in possession of the Stridhan. In Bobbli Ramakrishna case, the Supreme Court had observed that the common practice is that the bride takes the 'stridhana' articles to her matrimonial home.
The Court pointed out that the Separation Agreement between the daughter and her former husband had explicitly resolved all issues, including the division of personal belongings, at the time of their divorce. The Agreement included a clause releasing both parties from any further claims, and thus the charge under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not made out, the Court held.
The Supreme Court, also observed that no cognizable offence was made out under Section 406 of the IPC (criminal breach of trust).
The court noted that the FIR was filed in 2021, six years after the dissolution of the marriage in 2015 and three years after the complainant's daughter remarried in 2018. The Court said that the object of criminal proceedings is to bring a wrongdoer to justice, not to seek revenge or vendetta. It emphasized that delays in filing an FIR must be satisfactorily explained, which was not done in this case.
Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the Telangana High Court, quashing the complaint.
Case no. – Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3981/2023
Case Title – Mulakala Malleshwara Rao & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 621