oppn parties Supreme Court Gets Tough On Dowry

News Snippets

  • EMI's set to rise after the RBI hikes key policy rate
  • Calcutta HC says that the right to privacy does not end with the death of a person
  • Supreme Court says that a delayed order of preventive detention makes it invalid
  • Shashi Tharoor posts an erronous map of India in his manifesto, rectifies the error after criticism
  • Sonia Gandhi to take a call on who will be Rajasthan chief minister
  • Mallikarujun Kharge to be the new candidate to oppose Shashi Tharoor in the Congress presidential elections
  • RBI says that the September inflation rate may be higher than 7%
  • RBI hikes key rates by 50bps, downwardly revises FY23 growth rate to 7% from 7.2% earlier
  • Stocks recover well on Friday: Sensex gains 1016 points to0 57426 and Nifty 276 points to 17094
  • Mirabai Chanu wins gold easily at the National Games
  • In a first, the Supreme Court recognizes marital rape, although for the limited purpose of allowing married women the right of abortion up to 24 weeks if they conceived as a result of forced sex by their husbands
  • Air India cuts discounts on base fare to students and senior citizens from 50% to 25%
  • Mallikarjun Kharge and Digvijay Singh are being touted as frontrunners to take on Shashi Tharoor in the elections for the post of Congress president
  • Sonia Gandhi will decide who will be Rajasthan CM if she feels there is a need to change guard after the near-rebellion by MLAs in the state
  • Ashok Gehlot bowed out of the race for being Congress president after meeting Sonia Gandhi
RBI hikes key rates by 50bps, stocks jump and recover 50% of the losses incurred in the last few session
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.