Even If Dowry Is Not Demanded Before Or At The Time Of Marriage, Subsequent Demand Is Sufficient To Attract Dowry Prohibition Act: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday, while dismissing the application filed by Kiran Kumar, the convict in the Vismaya dowry death case, seeking an interim order for suspension of his 10 years sentence, observed that even if there was no demand for dowry before or at the time of marriage, the subsequent demand made is sufficient to attract the definition of dowry under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Division Bench consisting of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Sophy Thomas while expressing concern on the rise in atrocities against women in their matrimonial homes and harassment for dowry, observed:

While enacting Section 304B of the IPC, the Legislature strongly intended to curb the social evil of dowry demand. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was amended with effect from 19.11.1986, and Section 304B dowry death was introduced in the Indian Penal Code with effect from the very same day, i.e., on 19.11.1986. Section 113 B presumption as to dowry death was also introduced in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, on the same day i.e., 19.11.1986. So the Legislative intent in bringing out these amendments in all the three statues simultaneously will show the strong desire to eradicate the social evil of dowry death from the society using the iron hands of law.

The prosecution case is that the appellant/accused (husband) demanded dowry from Vismaya, a 23-year-old Ayurveda medical student and abetted and instigated her to commit suicide.

The Court after considering the evidence from the documents and depositions of witnesses produced before it, observed that even if at all there was no demand for dowry, prior to the marriage, the subsequent conduct on part of the appellant would clearly show that after the marriage, he was abusing and assaulting the deceased on account of the car given and the deficit of gold ornaments given from her family.

The Court pointed out that the definition of dowry in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 itself would indicate that any property or valuable security, given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly, by one party to the marriage to the other party to the marriage or by parents of either parties to the marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person at or before, or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties- is dowry.

Therefore, the Court observed that even if there was no property or valuable security given or agreed to be given at or before the marriage, the offence can be attracted even after the marriage.

In the case on hand, even if there was no demand for dowry before or at the time of marriage, as pleaded by the applicant/appellant, the subsequent demand made by him is sufficient to attract the definition of dowry under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the Court observed.