Giving Dowry An Offence But Bride & Family Admittedly Defy This Law And Go Unpunished Because Of Bar In Law, Alarming: Allahabad High Court

In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court has elucidated on provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999 and observed that groom and his family are being prosecuted under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 merely based on the statements made by the bride and her family. However, due to the bar under Section 7(3), no action is being taken against the bride and her family for giving the dowry which is also an offence under Section 3 of the Act.

Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that “Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act.”

Justice Vikram D. Chauhan held that even though persons cannot be prosecuted based on statements made regarding giving dowry, they are still offenders under Section 3 of the Act. The Court held that in such circumstances, sole reliance being placed on the statement of the person giving the dowry is unjust and unfair. There must be other evidence to corroborate the allegations of dowry including sources of income and disclosures under Income Tax Act.

Observing that the punishment of demand of dowry is extendable upto 2 years whereas punishment for receiving dowry is not less than years, the Court held that in order to get the groom and his family prosecuted with higher punishment, false allegations might be made in statements by the bride and her family when there is no other corroborative evidence.

Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999 mandates submission of list of presents received by the parties to a marriage before the Dowry Prohibition Officer within one month from the date of the marriage prepared in accordance with the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985. Rule 6(8) of the Rules provides that the Dowry Prohibition Officer has to make entries of the list provided under Rule 10 in a register which is to be maintained for the said purpose.

The Court observed that several cases were coming before the Court where no list under the Act or Rules had been maintained and no action was being taken by the authorities to ensure the compliance of the provisions. It was observed that while registering FIRs under the Act, the Investigating Officers were not inquiring into the lists which mandated under the Dowry Prohibition Rules.

“If the aforesaid list is maintained then it would assist the investigating officer as well as courts to assess as to which of presents during marriage would come in the exception provided under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Prima facie, this Court feels that the Dowry Prohibition Officer are not following the direction of law as they are not ensuring that the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Rules framed there under are followed in letter and spirit by parties to marriage.”

The Court held that the Government Order dated 17.05.2024 which directed that the list of presents as per the Rules of 1985 shall be submitted at the time of registration of marriage, was an important step in the eradication of dowry from society as it would also prevent false implication of the groom and his family members due to matrimonial disputes that arose after marriage.

The Court made note of Rule 5 (5) A of the Rules of 1999 which provided that the Chief Dowry Prohibition Officer was to issue instructions to all the departments of the State Government mandating every government servant to declare his marriage to his head of Department, stating that he had not taken any dowry.

The Court stated that in consideration of the above, on 16.02.2024, the Director, Women Welfare had issued instruction to various government departments for the complying with Rule 5 (5) A of the Rules of 1999 and directed that 26^th November was to be celebrated as “Dowry Prohibition Day”.

The Court held that as per Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1999, the Dowry Prohibition Officer was to try to create an awareness amongst the public about the evils of dowry by providing information through a variety of media and by involving individuals to prevent the atrocities caused by dowry. The Court made note of the fact that the eradication of the practice of dowry had been slow despite the Dowry Prohibition Act being enacted in the year 1961.

The Court noted that Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 provided for the procedure for filing complaints in respect of offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Rule 8 provided the procedure for prosecution of the offences provided. It was held that as per Section 8B of the Act, one of the functions of the Dowry Prohibition Officer was to collect evidence that would be necessary for the prosecution of person committing offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act. Additionally, Section 8B (3) of the Act empowered the State Government by notification in the official Gazette to confer on the Dowry Prohibition Officer the power of a police officer.

The Court held when a dispute has prima facie arisen under the Dowry Prohibition Act, it must be examined by the Dowry Prohibition Officer first under Rule 6(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999, and only once it has been found that there is no scope for reconciliation, that the matter be recommended for prosecution.

“Any other interpretation of law would mean that bride or her family members may resort to allegations under the Indian penal code along with allegations under the Dowry Prohibition Act and thereby take away the jurisdiction of Dowry Prohibition Officer and straight away expose the groom and their family members to the rigour of criminal law and deprived them of liberty although dispute may be a matrimonial dispute between parties.”

The Court observed that under the Act and Rules, the power to take preventative and remedial measures lies upon the Dowry Prohibition Officers and not the police. However, while filing complaints against the groom and his family members, the entire procedure and jurisdiction of the Dowry Prohibition Officer is being bypassed and chargesheets are being filed by the police.

“In order to take away jurisdiction of Dowry Prohibition Officer, along with offence under Dowry Prohibition Act, allegations are also being levelled with regard to provisions of Indian Penal Code. In respect of offence under Dowry Prohibition Act, authority to collect evidence and prosecute is vested with Dowry Prohibition Officer and when other offences are also involved then the State Government can always resort to Section 8B (3) of Dowry Prohibition Act. However, in the garb of allegations with regard to offence under the Indian penal code being levelled by the informant, the jurisdiction of the Dowry Prohibition Officer cannot be taken away in respect of offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act.”

The Court held that it is essential and mandatory to take the assistance of a Dowry Prohibition Officer during investigation of allegations regarding dowry to initiate remedial and preventative measures. It was observed that in the cases before the Court, none of the investigation reports revealed any assistance being taken from the Dowry Prohibition Officer.

The Court further observed that even though statements of brides and their families reveal that they are indulging in giving dowry on their own, no punishment is being imposed on them as under Section 7(3) of the Act no punishment can be imposed a person based on their statements.

Alarmed at the situation, the Court observed that citizens are openly writing to the authorities that they have given dowry which shows willful disobedience of law and only based on the statements, chargesheets are being issued against the groom and his family which is neither permissible in law, nor desirable.

“It is for the executive to take effective measures so that the situation does not arise where the citizens openly disrespect the law laid down by the Parliament or State Legislature, otherwise, the law with regard to prohibition in giving dowry would be a dead letter.”

Further, the Court held that Section 6 of the Act provides that any dowry which is recovered during investigation shall be transferred to the bride/woman for her benefit. However, the Court held that sole reliance cannot be placed on the statements made when no amount/dowry is recovered during investigation.

The Court held that the Parliament had specifically included the exception -gifts given at the time of marriage- under Section 3(2) of the Act where the gifts mentioned in the list will not be treated as dowry as in the Indian marriage system often customary gifts and token of celebrations are given. Further exception has been made regarding the gifts given by the bride or persons related to her which customary in nature and do not have an excessive value depending on the financial status of the person gifting.

“Where there is no substantive evidence with regard to giving or receiving dowry then only on the basis of the statement of an offender, criminal prosecution under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act should not be permitted. In such matters either further investigation is required to be carried out or provisions of Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act may have to be eliminated from prosecution on account of lack of substantive evidence. Such aspect of matters is required to be examined by the appropriate authority.”

Accordingly, the Court directed the State Government to explain as to why Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999 and the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of presents to the bride and bridegroom) Rules, 1985 were not being implemented and why the mandatory list of presents received was not being submitted before the Dowry Prohibition Officers.

The Government was also required to explain steps taken for encouraging submission of the list under the Rules even in cases where the marriage was not being registered. The State Government was also directed to explore possibilities regarding putting notice on marriage halls and venues campaigning for ante-dowry and maintenance of list under the Rules of 1985.

The Chief Dowry Prohibition Officer was required to disclose the programs undertaken in all forms of media, including hoardings in public places, for generating awareness about prevention of dowry in the last 2 years. Further, directions were issued to disclose the number of complaints received and the number of cases in which prosecution was lodged in the last 2 years.

Lastly, the Court directed the Director General of Police to explain why sources of dowry as alleged by the bride and her family were not being investigated when huge amounts were being in cash beyond the prescription in the Income Tax Act. The DGP was also required to explain as to why no investigation was made regarding usage of such dowry by groom and his family, and why the dowry money was not being recovered and handed over to the wife as provided under the Act.

Case Title: Ankit Singh And 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 363 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10631 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 363

Click Here To Read/Download Order