Observing that gifts exchanged during marriage ceremonies are generally not considered dowry, the Allahabad High Court stayed criminal proceedings against three individuals booked under the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act.
Justice Vikram D Chauhan, noting that the allegations might be an afterthought and warrant detailed examination, directed the State and the informant to file a counter-affidavit in the matter.
Co-accused Faraz Ather, a Muslim by faith, was reportedly in a romantic relationship with the deceased woman, who was Hindu. The couple, intending to marry, submitted affidavits on December 6, 2024, before the Delhi Marriage Registrar for a civil marriage, in which the woman allegedly affirmed her intention to marry while retaining her Hindu identity.
However, on December 12, she died by suicide. Following her death, her father lodged the present FIR, naming Ather, his brother (Applicant No. 1), sister (Applicant No. 2), and mother (Applicant No. 3) as accused.
It was alleged that all four accused had demanded dowry and pressured the deceased to convert to Islam. Challenging the entire criminal proceedings, the three applicants approached the High Court, asserting that their only involvement was attending a pre-marriage function. They argued that the FIR did not attribute any specific overt act to them and that the primary allegations of dowry demand and religious conversion were directed exclusively at Faraz, the deceased’s husband, and not at them.
The applicants also pointed to a missing person complaint filed by co-accused Faraz with the Delhi Police after he lost contact with the deceased, as well as the informant’s father’s own request for a post-mortem, in which he stated that it was a case of suicide. They emphasized that, according to the prosecution’s own case, no dowry was received by them. It was further argued that the deceased took her own life, allegedly because her mother and sister had compelled her to withdraw from the marriage process.
On the other hand, the counsel representing Opposite Party No. 2 opposed the applicants’ plea, relying on statements made by the deceased’s mother and sister on December 28, 2024, which alleged forced conversion and dowry demands by the applicants.
However, he was unable to provide any evidence of dowry actually being paid and merely claimed that the amount given during the Roka ceremony—a traditional pre-wedding event—constituted dowry. In light of these arguments, the bench initially observed that gifts exchanged during marriage ceremonies are generally not regarded as dowry.
The bench also took into account that the allegations of dowry demand and forced conversion surfaced only in statements recorded 17 days after the deceased’s death and had not been mentioned earlier by the informant-father.
“The gifts given in the marriage normally are not taken as dowry. The statements of the sister and the mother of the deceased were recorded on 28.12.2024 although the deceased had died on 11.12.2024. It has not been shown as to why the aforesaid allegations were not informed to the father of the deceased, who is the informant and why the statements have been raised at the first instance with police authorities on 28.12.2024”, the bench noted.
Describing the matter as potentially an ‘afterthought’, the Court held that the case warranted detailed examination and directed the State and the informant to file counter-affidavits. Additionally, it ordered that proceedings against the applicants be stayed until the next date of hearing. However, the Court clarified that the case against co-accused Faraz may continue as per the law.