oppn parties Supreme Court Gets Tough On Dowry

News Snippets

  • Kapil Sibal leaves Congress, fills nomination for Rajya Sabha with SPs backing
  • RBI bans 5 NBFCs as it cracks down on e-lending platforms
  • Hindustan Motors to tie-up with Peugeot to bring out a redesigned version of the iconic Ambassador
  • GST Council to defer rate rejig due to inflation
  • Centre to sell 29.5% in Hindustan Zinc at an expected price of Rs 38000cr
  • Stocks remain negative on Wednesday: Sensex loses 303 points to 53749 and Nifty 99 to 16025
  • IPL: RCB beat LSG by 14 runs and end their dream run. Rajat Patidar scores a brilliant 112. RCB will take on RR to decide who goes through to the finals
  • Delhi Additional district judge Nikhil Chopra says there is no legal right for people seeking to worship deity inside Qutab Minar, says it survived 800 years without worship so "let it survive like that"
  • Punjab chief minister Bhagwant Mann sacks state health minister Vijay Singla over corruption charges. Singla was later arrested by the ACB
  • Protestors burn the house of Andhra minister P Viswaroop and MLA Satish Kumar over renaming of Konaseema district as B R Amberdkar Konaseema
  • Gyanvapi: Varanasi district judge decides to first hear the 'maintainability' plea filed by mosque management
  • Delhivery and Venus Pipes shares list at premium of 10% and 8.7% respectively even when market sentiment was down
  • In a bid to cool edible oil prices, Centre allows duty-free imports of 20 lakh tonnes each of crude sunflower oil and crude palm oil per annum this year and next
  • Centre caps sugar exports to ensure availability of stocks in the domestic markets to cool prices
  • Stock markets get the jitters as RBI signals rate hike and government moves in to control inflation: Sensex tumbles by 236 points to 54052 and Nifty goes down by 89 points to 16125
Yasin Malik of JKLF gets two life terms in terror funding case /////// Kashmir TV artist killed and her nephew injured in a terror attack in Hushroo in Budgam district
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.