oppn parties Supreme Court Gets Tough On Dowry

News Snippets

  • Maratha quota bill likely to be tabled in Maharashtra assembly today
  • Arvind Kejriwal skips ED summons for the 6th time, says the case is in court and will follow court's decision
  • PM Modi says UP has gone from 'red tape' to 'red carpet' in 7 years of 'double engine' government
  • Farm unions reject government offers, to resume Delhi march from today
  • Centre says some Aadhar cards in Bengal 'deactivated' due to technical glitz, will be activated back soon
  • Supreme Court stays LS privilege panel summons to Bengal officials over BJP MP Sukanta Majumdar injury case
  • Supreme Court junks Sandeshkhali petition, says it cannot be compared to Manipur, asks petitioner to approach Calcutta HC
  • Supreme Court gets tough on Chandigarh mayoral elections, asks for ballot papers and video footage, does not order re-election
  • Government starts withdrawing old small tax demands, up to Rs 25000 per entry till FY 2009-10 and up to Rs 10000 per entry from FY 2010-11 to FY 2014-15 with an overall ceiling of Rs 1 lakh per tax payer
  • Stocks remained positive on Monday: Sensex gained 281 points to 72708 and Nifty 81 points to 22122
  • Jasprit Bumrah likely to be rested for 4th Test while K L Rahul may be back
  • FIH Pro League hockey: India beat Spain 8-7 in shootout
  • SP leader Salim Sherwani, miffed at no Muslim candidate given RS ticket, quits party
  • Army going for big (Rs 57000cr) upgrade in combat vehicles to replace T-72 tanks
  • Mamata Banerjee says the BJP is doing nothing to resolve the Sandeshkhali dispute but instead fanning the fires to escalate it
History created in Supreme Court as Chandigarh mayoral poll ballots counted in court, judges declare AAP candidate Kuldeep Kumar winner after taking into account the votes defaced by returning officer Anil Masih
oppn parties
Supreme Court Gets Tough On Dowry

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2022-01-12 05:59:42

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.

The Supreme Court rightly ruled that the word "dowry" should be given a wider interpretation when deciding what constituted a demand for dowry. It ruled that such interpretation should include any 'material' demand made on a woman, whether in respect of property or a valuable security of any nature, including demand for money for constructing a house. The apex court also categorically stated that "when dealing with cases under IPC section 304B, a provision legislated to act as a deterrent in society and curb the heinous crime of dowry, the shift in the approach of courts ought to be from strict to liberal...any rigid meaning would tend to bring to naught the real object of the provision."

In the instant case, the defence had made out a case that the demand for money was made by the deceased housewife out of her own volition to her parents as she wanted a house to be constructed in her matrimonial home. The apex court, while rejecting the defence, said that the demand made by the deceased had to be seen in the correct perspective as she was being tortured to bring money from her family. It said that "we are of the opinion that the trial court correctly interpreted the demand for money raised by the respondents on the deceased for construction of house as falling within the definition of the word dowry. It cannot be lost sight of that the respondents had been constantly tormenting the deceased and asking her to approach her family members for money to build a house and it was only on their insistence that she was compelled to ask them to contribute some amount."

After this order of the Supreme Court, not only should a wider interpretation be allowed for dowry but courts should also see through the various ruses adopted by the accused to put the blame on the woman and get away from culpability. No married woman would like to burden her family with monetary demands unless tortured and pushed into doing so. Courts will have to be very strict in this regard.

In a separate case, the Supreme Court denied leniency to an 80-year-old mother-in-law saying that her crime was more serious as she tortured her daughter-in-law despite being a woman and more so when her husband used to live abroad and she was alone with them. The court said she abdicated her natural duty to take care of her daughter-in-law and instead ill-treated her. The court refused to let her off but since it was a 15-year-old case, reduced her term from 1 year to three months imprisonment.