Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > Family Laws > The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 > Definition of Dowry Under the Act
Objects of Dowry prohibition Act, 1961:
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was enacted by the Parliament in 1961 with an objective to prohibit presenting, obtaining or demanding dowry by any means from either of the party to the marriage.
In Soni Devraj Bhai Baber Bhai v. State of Gujrat, 1991 (4) SC 2988 case, explaining the purpose of the dowry prohibition Act, the Supreme Court cited the observation of Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru to show the role of legislation in dealing with the dowry as a social evil as follows: “Legislation cannot by itself normally solve this deep-rooted social problem. One has to approach in other ways too, but legislation is necessary and essential, so that it may give that push and have that educative factor as well as the legal sanctions behind it, which helps public opinion to be given a certain shape.”
Definition of Dowry:
Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961:
Definition of “dowry”:
In this Act, “dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly—
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation II.
The expression “valuable security” has the same meaning as in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
Under Section 30 of I.P.C.: “The words “valuable security” denote a document which is, or purports to be, a document where by any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or where by any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability or has not a certain legal right. ”
It should be noticed that the Act uses the word “dowry” not merely in the sense of what the bride’s parents give to the bride and bridegroom but also the other way round. In other words, if the property or valuable security is given by the bridegroom to the bride or bride’s father in connection with the marriage of the parties, it would also be covered in the definition of dowry.
It should also be noted that wedding presents, whatever be their value, are excluded from the purview of dowry. Such presents may be justified as the Act allows only those presents which are given without any demand and they are required to be entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under the Act.
This section does not apply in respect of Muslims where ‘Dower’ or ‘Mehr’ is given to the wife by the husband. The fact is that ‘Mehr’ is neither consideration not dowry, it has a unique position of its own.
Judicial Interpretation of the Term Dowry:
In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 SC 958 case, the Court held that agreement is not always necessary. Persistent demand for T.V. and scooter were held to be demand in connection with marriage, hence such demand would fall within the definition of dowry.
In Kamdeo Mehto v. State of Bihar, (Now Jharkhand), 2006(1) RCR (Criminal) 495 case, accused demanding service from in-laws. The Court held, that service is a property and would come within the definition of dowry.
In Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam, (2004) 3 SCC 199 case, the Court observed that the definition of the term “dowry” under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act shows that any property or valuable security given or “agreed to be given” either directly or indirectly by one party to the marriage to the other party to the marriage “at or before or after the marriage” as a “consideration for the marriage of the said parties” would become “dowry” punishable under the Dowry Act the property or valuable security so as to constitute “dowry” within the meaning of the Dowry Act must, therefore, be given or demanded “as consideration for the marriage.”
In Venuri Venkateswar Rao v. State of A. P., 1992 (1) crimes 287 AP. case, it has been held that the lands to be given come within the definition of dowry. The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the definition of dowry was wide enough to include all sort 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.
In Hakam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990 (1) DMC 343 P & H. case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that the expression “dowry” as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is wider than the expression “Stridhana” while the expression “dowry” denotes presents given in connection with marriage to the bridal couple as well as others, ‘Stridhana’ was confined to property given to or meant for the bride.
In Shyam M Sachdev v. State, 1990 (2) CC cases 425 Del case, the Court held that dowry signifies presents given in marriage to bride couple as well as to others while “Stridhana” is property given to or meant for the bride only.
Cases When the Demand is Not Dowry:
In Sushil Kumar and others v. State of Haryana, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 129 case, the Court observed that there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third “at any time” after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be unending period. But the crucial words are “in connection with the marriage of the said parties.” And hence held that Any payment, which is a customary payment i.e. given at the time of the birth of a child or other ceremonies as are prevalent in different societies are not covered by the expression dowry.
In Sidram Narayan Batane v. State of Maharastra, 1993 1 DMC 204 (Bom) case, the Court held that the term “dowry” does not include reimbursement of marriage expenses.
In Mohammad Usman Warsi v. Mahammad Farooq, 1990 (27) ACC 376 case, the Court held that the term ‘dowry’ does not include the amount of ‘Mehr’ in accordance with the definition provided in Section 2 of the said Act.
Previous Topic: Dowry and its Ill-Effects
Next Topic: Penalty for Taking, Giving and abetting Dowry (Ss. 3 and 4)