INTRODUCTION
Today, I will talk about the case of State
of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra & Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 33,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the meaning and the definition of ‘dowry’.
All of us know that the practice of giving ‘dowry’
is prohibited in India. There are various legal provisions and legislations
such as the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and S. 304B of IPC, that govern the
same. In short, the purpose of enacting the Dowry Prohibition Act and the other
penal provisions has been “to combat the social evil of dowry demand that
has reached alarming proportions.”
MEANING
It is pertinent to note that S. 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, defines ‘dowry’. It provides for an elaborate definition,
and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the same by dividing it into six
parts as follows: -
a. Dowry includes within its ambit both property as
well as valuable security of any kind.
b. Such property or valuable security should be
given or agreed to be given.
c. Such giving or agreeing to give can be: -
i. By one party to a marriage to the other.
ii. By the parents of either party.
iii. By any other person to either party to the
marriage or to any other person.
d. “Such property or security can be given
or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly.”
e. Such giving or agreeing to give can be at any time
before or after or during the marriage.
f. “Such giving or receiving must be in
connection with the marriage of the parties.”
Thus, we see that a definition of wide amplitude
has been given to ‘dowry’. It can involve any person and any property,
depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
INTERPRETATION
However, despite such wide definition, confusion
often arises as to what is and what is not included within the meaning of ‘dowry’.
According to the Court, in case of an ambiguity in the language used in the
definition of ‘dowry’, an interpretation “in favour of assigning an
expansive meaning to the expression ‘dowry’” ought to be preferred.
Basically, “interpretation of a provision of
law that will defeat the very intention of the legislature must be shunned in
favour of an interpretation that will promote the object sought to be achieved
through the legislation meant to uproot a social evil like dowry demand. In
this context the word “Dowry” ought to be ascribed an expansive meaning so as
to encompass any demand made on a woman, whether in respect of a property or a
valuable security of any nature.”
It was also held by the Court that “any
money or property or valuable security demanded by any of the persons mentioned
in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at or before or at any time after
the marriage which is reasonably connected to the death of a married woman,
would necessarily be in connection with or in relation to the marriage unless,
the facts of a given case clearly and unequivocally point otherwise.”
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Thus, in conclusion, following important points
emerge: -
a. Dowry is giving or agreeing to give, directly
or indirectly, any property or valuable security, by or to, either parties to
the marriage or parents of either parties or any other person.
b. The demand of dowry can take place at any time
before or after or during the marriage.
c. In case of an ambiguity in the language used in
the definition of ‘dowry’, an interpretation that provides expansive meaning to
such definition should be preferred.
d. Any interpretation that defeats the purpose of
enacting the Dowry Prohibition Act ought not to be preferred.
e. Any demand of dowry that is connected to death
of a married woman would be construed to be in connection with the marriage
unless proven otherwise.
Thus, I hope that the nature and the meaning of ‘dowry’
in Indian parlance is clear by now.
No comments:
Post a Comment