Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992

Posted on July 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Bombay High Court held that, “Any demand for presents after the marriage, but not having a connection with the marriage of the parties will not constitute a demand for dowry”

From Para 6,

Dowry in the sense of that expression contemplated by Act 28 of 1961 is a demand for property or valuable security having an inextricable nexus with the marriage. In other words it is a consideration from the side of the bride’s parents or relatives to the groom or his parents and/or guardian for the agreement to wed the bride-to-be. Where the demand for property or valuable security has no connection with the consideration for the marriage, it will not amount to a demand for dowry. In the instant case, the evidence has to be properly understood and thus viewed it is clear that what the appellants wanted was valuable presents to be made to appellant Mahadeo on the occasion of festivals like Deepavali. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the presents are customarily given to sons-in-law on festive occasions and giving of such presents is in no way connected with the wedding or marriage. It is a post-marriage expectation and the expectation and performance thereof once restricted to the affluents and the middle class, has now spread its tentacles to the poor also. The expectation is because of the relationship, but without any nexus to the agreement to marry. Therefore, it does not amount to dowry. Any demand for presents after the marriage, but not having a connection with the marriage of the parties will not constitute a demand for dowry. This is clear from the qualifying clause of section 2 in Act 28 of 1961 reproduced above.

Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992

Citations: [1993 (3) BomCR 473]

Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013

Posted on July 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is overruled by Rajinder Singh here.

Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013

Citations: [2013 AIR SC 1567], [2013 ALT CRI 2 457], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 225], [2013 OLR 2 130], [2013 JT 4 188], [2013 AIR SC 1746], [2013 AIOL 160], [2013 GLR 3 2510], [2013 CRILJ 2095], [2013 AKR 2 339], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 2 342], [2013 CLT 116 563], [2013 ALD CRI 1 967], [2013 SCALE 3 525], [2013 SUPREME 2 485], [2013 AIC 125 194], [2013 CUTLT 116 563], [2013 PLJR 3 91], [2013 SCC 3 684], [2013 JCC 2 1330], [2013 DMC 1 700], [2013 SLT 2 767], [2013 BLJ 3 531], [2013 SCC CRI 2 15], [2013 SCR 3 449], [2013 ALLCC 82 61], [2013 AD SC 4 275], [2013 CRIMES SC 3 229], [2013 GUJLR 3 2510], [2013 CRLJ SC 2095]

M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020

Posted on July 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Nice judgment from Telangana High Court which held as follows:

38. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that by virtue of amendment vide Act No.63 of 1984 w.e.f. 02.10.1985, the words “in connection with the marriage of the said parties” are added and, therefore, the alleged demand of dowry should be in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Section 4 of the Act, 1961 also deals with “penalty for demanding dowry’. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no demand of dowry in connection with the marriage of the parties viz., deceased and accused No.1.

39. As discussed supra, the entire complaint lodged by PW.1 against the accused is that the accused have demanded additional dowry, more particularly, the dowry, which was given to the second daughter of PW.1 at the time of her marriage in the year 1998 i.e., six years after the marriage of the deceased. Even the said alleged demand of additional dowry at the time of marriage of second daughter of PW.1 is also not proved with cogent evidence.

40. It is relevant to note that the definition of ‘dowry’ under Section 2 of the Act, 1961 mere demand thereof would not be an offence under Section 4 of the Act, 1961. It should either be given or agreed to be given at or before or after the marriage in connection with the marriage. Although in common parlance one very often uses the term “dowry demand” in the cases where the husband or his relations demand valuable security from the parents and other relations of the wife after the marriage, yet this will not amount to demand for dowry under the Act, 1961 in view of the definition of dowry contained in Section 2 of the Act, 1961.

M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020

Citations: [2

Sudha Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 4 January 2016

Posted on September 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this revision filed by knife against the discharge of husband’s relatives, District Court of Delhi, held that not every cruelty attracts IPC 498A especially in the absence of a harassment/demand for same.

From Para 5,

Perusal of the file reveals that case was registered on the complaint given by the petitioner to the Joint Commissioner of Police. In this complaint it is no where mentioned that any of the respondents no. 2 to 6 had made any specific demand and the allegations are against her husband.

….

Perusal of the file further reveals that supplementary statements of petitioner were recorded on 29.03.2006 & 02.05.2004. In the complaint given to the Joint Commissioner of Police, there are no allegation of harassment and dowry demand against any of the respondents no. 2 to 6. There are allegation against respondent nos. 5 & 6 that they had thrown the gifts and they refused to accept them as the same were not as per their choice. There are allegation against the respondents no. 3 & 4 that they started fighting with the petitioner. They also stated to the petitioner that they are foreign returns and taunted the petitioner and further they demanded for change of gifts. I am of the view that these allegations cannot be construed as demand in view of Section 498A IPC. The Ld. MM has rightly came to conclusion that all the allegations are general in nature. The counsel for the petitioner is not able to make out any allegation of harassment or dowry demand against the respondents no. 2 to 6.

Para 6 further destroys the prosecution case,

It is admitted fact that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 20.06.2002 and complaint was filed on 11.11.2003. It is also admitted fact that the marriage between respondents no. 3 & 4 was solemnized in the year 1999 and marriage between respondents no. 5 & 6 were solemnized in the year 2000. It isalso admitted fact that respondents no. 3 to 6 are not residing in the matrimonial house of the petitioner and they are residing separately after the marriage of thepetitioner. It is true that no date, time and place has been given by the complainant when any demand was raised by the respondents no. 2 to 6.

From Para 8,

But, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under Section 498A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be torture physical or mental, positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand.

Sudha Vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 4 January, 2016

The landmark judgment of High Court of Bombay is available here.

Gunakala Durga Rani Vs Gunakala Sudhakar on 6 January 2015

Posted on July 7, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

The Knife got here DV petition dismissed. LOL

Key points

Unexplained delay

Dowry not proved

No return of articles given voluntarily

Gunakala Durga Rani Vs Gunakala Sudhakar on 6 January, 2015

Chembeti Srilakshmi Vs Chembeti Sreenu on 7 January 2016

Posted on July 5, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a good judgment affirming some key aspects in dealing with false DV cases.

From Para 15,

Pw1 did not provide any information regarding the houses possessed by the respondent. She simply pleaded that the respondent possessed landed properties and houses at various places. But to prove her contention no piece of document filed. In other side, the respondent contended that, R2 had registered sale deed in favor of the children of petitioner and Ac.3.00 cents of land was transferred to them. In view of the above circumstances this court feels that the petitioner did not file any believable document to show that the respondents possessed houses. In absence of any details this court can not pass any residential orders. Hence, this issue is answered in favor of respondents.

From Para 19,

As seen the evidence on record, PW-1 did not adduce any evidence to show that her parents had given dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, 8 tulas of gold and also household articles to the Respondents at the time of her marriage. Except PW-1 evidence, no other witness stated that the Respondents received the dowry amount. Further more, as observed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Thammineni Bhaskar Rao V/s State of A.P reported in 2007(1) ALT (Crl.) 434 at Paragraph 31 observed that Rule 10 of Andhra Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules 1998 provides that any offence U/sec. 3 and 4 shall be filed before expiry of one year. In respect of Secs. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the same applies to this case since in this case also the same allegations leveled against the respondents.

In the present case, the marriage of P.W1 and the 1st respondent took place 8 years prior to date of filing of this petition. Hence, the allegations with regard to the dowry cannot be considered. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled for return of any such dowry amount or any other reliefs. Hence, this court feels that dowry amount can’t be ordered to return.

Chembeti Srilakshmi Vs Chembeti Sreenu on 7 January, 2016

Shaik Mehataj @ Jareena Vs Shaik Humayun on 3 October, 2016

Posted on July 4, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Some interesting points in this DVC order.

From Para 10,

There is no pleading and evidence of the petitioner before this Court that the respondent no.1 was consuming alcohol even prior to their marriage or that he had started to consume alcohol from the first day of their marriage or immediately thereafter. According to the evidence of the petitioner the respondent no.1 developed sudden addiction towards alcohol after the birth of their child. The said version of the petitioner is difficult to believe as a person who is a teetotaler for couple of years of his marriage, all of a sudden he develops chronic addiction towards alcohol and spendthrift without any reason.

From Para 11,

The petitioner has stated during the course of her cross-examination that only she and the respondents no.1 and 2 only were residing together, and the respondent no.3 to 6 were residing separately. When the respondents no.3 to 6 were not residing along with the petitioner in her matrimonial house then the manner and mode of the alleged subjection of the petitioner to domestic violence must be specifically pleaded and proved by the petitioner. There is no averment in the pleading and evidence of the petitioner the respondents no.3 to 6 were instigating the respondent no.1 for performing second marriage with another woman by coming to the matrimonial house of the petitioner or through other mediums like communication etc., in the presence and hearing of the petitioner, and also about the manner in which, and the modes through which, she was beaten by the respondents no.3 to 6. The petitioner also did not aver and depose the exact abusive words that was allegedly uttered by the respondents no.3 to 6 to her and also the nature of threat that was allegedly given to her by the respondents no.3 to 6 in absence of the respondent no.1.

From Para 13,

and that on one occasion without informing the respondent no.1 she got terminated her pregnancy when she conceived for the second time after the birth of their son, and that the petitioner has been voluntarily residing separately from the respondent no.1. The evidence of the respondent shows that after their marriage the petitioner was insisting him to set up separate family at the village of her parents at Konijedu village, that the petitioner did not like her mother-in-law shall reside along with them, and that after the birth of their son when the petitioner had conceived for the second child then with the assistance of her sister by name Haseena, who is residing at Nellore town, she got terminated the pregnancy without informing him, has not been challenged by the petitioner during the course of his cross-examination. Thus, the unrebutted evidence of the respondent discloses that the petitioner has rather victimized the respondent no.1.

From Para 14,

The cross-examination of PW2 indicates that she had not personally observed the parents of the petitioner giving Rs.1,30,000/- cash, 20 sovereigns of gold ornament, household articles as dowry to the respondents, as such, his evidence can be said to be hearsay in nature, and unreliable in that regard. The cross-examination of PW3 discloses that Rs.1,30,000/- dowry, gold ornaments weighing 20 sovereigns, and household articles were presented in her absence, and that her evidence is also hearsay in nature, and unreliable in that regard. Per contra the cross-examination of PW3 discloses that gold ornaments weighing 20 sovereigns were presented to the petitioner in her marriage. Thus it can be said that the said gold ornaments were not presented to the respondent as dowry by the parents of the petitioner. The evidence of the parents of the petitioner is the best evidence to prove that the alleged presentation of dowry in the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent no.1 to the respondents. It is not the case of the petitioner that her parents are not more alive. The parents of the petitioner are not examined by the petitioner before this Court. Hence, an adverse inference is drawn under section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act against the petitioner for not examining her parents to establish the alleged presentation of dowry in her marriage by her parents to the respondents.

From Para 15,

The petitioner has claimed maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month from the respondent for herself and her son. The petitioner did not plead and testify before this Court about her inability to maintain herself and her son, and also about the sufficiency of the means of the respondent no.1 to provide maintenance to her and her son.

Shaik Mehataj @ Jareena Vs Shaik Humayun on 3 October, 2016

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: DP Act 4 – Dowry Demand Not Proved

Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992

Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013

M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020

Sudha Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 4 January 2016

Gunakala Durga Rani Vs Gunakala Sudhakar on 6 January 2015

Chembeti Srilakshmi Vs Chembeti Sreenu on 7 January 2016

Shaik Mehataj @ Jareena Vs Shaik Humayun on 3 October, 2016