In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court provided clarity on the stipulations outlined in the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 and the Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules of 1999. The court noted a concerning trend where grooms and their families face prosecution under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, solely based on statements provided by the bride and her family. However, a legal obstacle under Section 7(3) prevents any action from being taken against the bride and her family for their involvement in dowry exchange, despite it constituting an offense under Section 3 of the Act.
Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that “Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act.”
Justice Vikram D. Chauhan emphasized that while individuals cannot be prosecuted solely based on statements concerning the exchange of dowry, they still fall under the category of offenders as per Section 3 of the Act. The Court deemed it unjust and unfair to rely solely on the testimony of the dowry giver, stressing the necessity for additional evidence to support dowry allegations, such as income sources and disclosures under the Income Tax Act.
The Court noted the discrepancy in punishment for demanding dowry, extendable up to 2 years, versus receiving dowry, which carries a minimum punishment term. It cautioned that false accusations may arise in statements from the bride and her family to ensure prosecution of the groom and his family with the higher punishment, particularly when there is a lack of corroborative evidence.
Under Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999, parties to a marriage are required to submit a list of gifts received to the Dowry Prohibition Officer within a month of the marriage, as per the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985. Rule 6(8) mandates the Dowry Prohibition Officer to record these lists in a register maintained for this purpose.
The Court observed a concerning trend where cases lacked proper documentation as required by the Act or Rules, with authorities failing to enforce compliance. Despite the necessity of maintaining lists under the Dowry Prohibition Rules, Investigating Officers were neglecting this aspect when registering FIRs under the Act.
“If the aforesaid list is maintained then it would assist the investigating officer as well as courts to assess as to which of presents during marriage would come in the exception provided under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Prima facie, this Court feels that the Dowry Prohibition Officer are not following the direction of law as they are not ensuring that the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Rules framed there under are followed in letter and spirit by parties to marriage.”Top of Form
The Court emphasized the significance of the Government Order dated 17.05.2024, which mandated the submission of a list of wedding gifts according to the 1985 Rules at the time of marriage registration. This measure was deemed crucial in combating dowry practices, as it aimed to prevent the unjust implication of the groom and his family in matrimonial disputes arising post-marriage.
Highlighting Rule 5 (5) A of the 1999 Rules, the Court noted that it required the Chief Dowry Prohibition Officer to instruct all state government departments, obliging every government employee to declare their marriage to their department head, confirming the absence of dowry acceptance.
Considering these provisions, on 16.02.2024, the Director of Women Welfare issued directives to various government departments to adhere to Rule 5 (5) A of the 1999 Rules and designated 26th November as “Dowry Prohibition Day.”
In accordance with Rule 6(1) of the 1999 Rules, the Court underscored the duty of the Dowry Prohibition Officer to raise awareness about the perils of dowry through various media channels and community engagement, aiming to curb the associated atrocities. Despite the Dowry Prohibition Act’s enactment in 1961, the eradication of dowry practices has been slow, as noted by the Court.
Examining the procedural aspects, the Court referred to Rule 7 and Rule 8 of the 1999 Rules, which delineated the process for filing complaints and prosecuting offenses under the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961. It emphasized that under Section 8B of the Act, one of the Dowry Prohibition Officer’s roles was to gather evidence necessary for prosecuting individuals under the Act. Furthermore, Section 8B (3) empowered the State Government to confer upon the Dowry Prohibition Officer the powers of a police officer through official Gazette notification.
The Court stipulated that disputes arising under the Dowry Prohibition Act must first undergo examination by the Dowry Prohibition Officer, as per Rule 6(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999. Only after reconciliation efforts prove futile can the matter be recommended for prosecution.
“Any other interpretation of law would mean that bride or her family members may resort to allegations under the Indian penal code along with allegations under the Dowry Prohibition Act and thereby take away the jurisdiction of Dowry Prohibition Officer and straight away expose the groom and their family members to the rigour of criminal law and deprived them of liberty although dispute may be a matrimonial dispute between parties.”
The Court noted that according to the Act and Rules, the responsibility for implementing preventive and corrective actions rests with the Dowry Prohibition Officers, not the police. However, in cases where complaints are lodged against the groom and his family members, the established procedure and authority of the Dowry Prohibition Officer are being circumvented, and police are directly filing chargesheets.
“In order to take away jurisdiction of Dowry Prohibition Officer, along with offence under Dowry Prohibition Act, allegations are also being levelled with regard to provisions of Indian Penal Code. In respect of offence under Dowry Prohibition Act, authority to collect evidence and prosecute is vested with Dowry Prohibition Officer and when other offences are also involved then the State Government can always resort to Section 8B (3) of Dowry Prohibition Act. However, in the garb of allegations with regard to offence under the Indian penal code being levelled by the informant, the jurisdiction of the Dowry Prohibition Officer cannot be taken away in respect of offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act.”
The Court emphasized the necessity and obligation to involve a Dowry Prohibition Officer in the investigation of dowry-related allegations to implement corrective and preventive measures. It was noted that in the cases under consideration, none of the investigation reports indicated any involvement of the Dowry Prohibition Officer.
Furthermore, the Court observed that despite statements from brides and their families admitting to engaging in dowry-giving, no penalties were being levied against them, as Section 7(3) of the Act prohibits punishment solely based on their statements.
Expressing alarm at the situation, the Court highlighted instances where individuals openly admitted to giving dowry to authorities, indicating a blatant disregard for the law. Chargesheets were being issued against the groom and his family solely based on these statements, a practice deemed impermissible and undesirable by the Court.
“It is for the executive to take effective measures so that the situation does not arise where the citizens openly disrespect the law laid down by the Parliament or State Legislature, otherwise, the law with regard to prohibition in giving dowry would be a dead letter.”
Additionally, the Court ruled that according to Section 6 of the Act, any dowry recovered during an investigation must be transferred to the bride or woman for her benefit. However, the Court emphasized that when no dowry amount is retrieved during the investigation, sole reliance on statements cannot be justified.
The Court noted that Parliament specifically included an exception in Section 3(2) of the Act for gifts given during marriage ceremonies, which will not be considered dowry. This exception accounts for customary gifts and celebratory tokens often exchanged in Indian marriages. Furthermore, exceptions are made for gifts given by the bride or her relatives, which are customary and of nominal value relative to the giver’s financial status.
“Where there is no substantive evidence with regard to giving or receiving dowry then only on the basis of the statement of an offender, criminal prosecution under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act should not be permitted. In such matters either further investigation is required to be carried out or provisions of Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act may have to be eliminated from prosecution on account of lack of substantive evidence. Such aspect of matters is required to be examined by the appropriate authority.”
Consequently, the Court instructed the State Government to elucidate why Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999, and the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985, were not being enforced, and why the mandatory list of gifts received was not being submitted to the Dowry Prohibition Officers.
Moreover, the Government was tasked with detailing the measures taken to encourage submission of the list under the Rules, even in cases where marriages were not registered. It was also directed to explore options for posting notices in marriage halls and venues advocating against dowry and promoting compliance with the 1985 Rules.
The Chief Dowry Prohibition Officer was instructed to disclose the initiatives undertaken across various media platforms, including public hoardings, to raise awareness about dowry prevention over the past two years. Additionally, the Officer was directed to provide statistics on the number of complaints received and the number of cases resulting in prosecution over the same period.
Lastly, the Court required the Director General of Police to clarify why alleged sources of dowry, as reported by the bride and her family, were not being investigated, particularly when significant amounts were exchanged in cash, surpassing limits prescribed by the Income Tax Act. The DGP was also asked to account for the lack of investigation into the utilization of such dowry by the groom and his family, and why the dowry funds were not being recovered and transferred to the wife as stipulated under the Act.