On this page
The dowry system has been prevailing in the Hindu community since olden days. When a bride was brought into the family, it was considered to be a great event and it was looked upon as bringing fortune into the family not by way of dowry but on account of the grace the young lady carried with and around her. It slowly became a social evil and has been the bane of Indian society which continues to persist in spite of the women's liberation movement. Even though for eradication of this social evil, effective steps can be taken by the society itself and the social sanctions can be more deterrent. Yet legal sanctions in the form of its prohibition and punishment are some steps in that direction. Thus, the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was enacted to achieve this objective.
In this Act "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly:
In Venuri Venkateswar Rao v. State of AP, it has been held that the lands to be given come within the definition of dowry. The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed in the present case that the definition of dowry was wide enough to include all sorts of properties, valuable securities etc. given or agreed to be given directly or indirectly. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 20,000 and 1 1/2 acres of land agreed to be given at the time of marriage was nothing but dowry.
What does not include "dowry"- Neither the reimbursement of marriage expenses nor the amount of marriage can be included within the definition of dowry as contained in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
In Sidram Narayan Batane v. State of Maharashtra, the two families from which the couple hailed, were not very well off and neither was in a position to incur unusual expenditure for the performance of the marriage. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 11,000 or thereabout was given by the groom’s father as reimbursement for the expenses expected to be incurred in the wedding ceremony. Amongst Hindus it was not unnatural for the girls' side to bear the wedding expenses. It cannot be said that what was given and/or received represented "dowry" in the strict sense of the word. Thus the term "dowry" does not include reimbursement of marriage expenses.
On another point, the expression "dowry" also does not include the "mehr" as held in Mohammad Usman Warsi v. Mohammad Farooq.
If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives to takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable "with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]:
If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees
Any agreement for the giving or taking of dowry shall be void.
In Ramebal v. Harihar Singh, on non-materialisation of the marriage the father of the girl filed a suit for refund of the dowry. The Patna High Court held that the giving of dowry was prohibited by the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and both the parties were in 'pari delicto', i.e., equally guilty in entering into an illegal contract.
Section 6. of the Act states that where any dowry is received on account of whose marriage it is given that person shall transfer the dowry to the woman, i.e., bride or hold such dowry as trust for the benefit of the woman or bride. In other words the dowry or presents received by the bride on her marriage shall be treated as exclusive property vesting in her with right to use including the right to transfer.
Section 7. of the Act states that offences committed under the Act are cognizable offences and no court inferior to that of Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of First class shall try offences either on its own knowledge or on a police report or on a complaint sued by an aggrieved person.
Section 8. of the Act declares that offences committed under the Act are cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable This provision connotes legislation in section that they intended to provide stringent measures regarding punishment with view to prevent evil system.
Section 8-B. of the Act makes provision regarding appointment of Dowry Prohibition officers if the State Government considers it necessary. The function and jurisdiction of such officers will be determined by the State Government under the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, sub-section (2) of Section 8-B itself lays down the powers and function of such Dowry Prohibition officer these are as follows-
Section 9 and 10. of the Dowry Prohibition Act empowers the Central Government and State Government, respectively, to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 states that such rules may provide for the form and manner regarding the lists of presents referred to Section 3(2) of the Act and trustful implementation of policy and execution of action with respect to the administration of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
“Dowry” as a practice is deeply rooted in Indian society, and it cannot be totally eradicated. The major reason that this practice cannot be eradicated is the mentality, thought and mindset of Indians. This social evil can be eradicated when there would be a change in the mentality of the people and when the laws become stringent.