Basing on the Pooja Saxena case here, Parents of women who were alleged to have committed the crime of giving dowry were let free.
Chitranjan Dev Goel and Ors Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors on 21 March 2016Citations: [2016 SCC ONLINE DEL 2130], [2016 DLT CN B 229 30]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134987777/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5728e42ee56109277ee48517
https://www.quickcompany.in/judgements/judgement-7b760d46-8b0b-48bd-9a45-794161ac3e2c
Justice K C Bhanu from AP High Court has held as follows:
From Para 2,
2. Petitioner is an accused in C.C. No. 224/1995. Chinna Chowk Police laid a charge-sheet against him, his parents and three sisters for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, for short, hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”. A single charge under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act was framed against petitioner and A-2. After conclusion of trial and before judgment, the learned Magistrate framed separate charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act against petitioner and A-2 and recalled P.Ws. 1 to 3 and cross-examination them. During their cross-examination, P.Ws. 1 to 3 admitted that they had given Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and presented gold jewels worth Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner and his father. At that stage, petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No. 4073/1998 before the Trial Court under Section 319, Cr.P.C, to implead P.Ws. 1 to 4 as accused for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, to be tried along with the other accused in the case, since both the giver and taker of dowry are equally liable for punishment under the Act. The learned Magistrate dismissed that application against which petitioner filed Crl. R.P. No. 15/1999 before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision holding that P.Ws. 1 to 4 cannot be tried as accused in the same trial as they are protected under Section 7(3) of the Act. It is as against the order of dismissal of the revision, A-1 filed the present petitioner to quash the said order.
From Para 7,
7. A plain reading of the above provision would go to show that giving or taking of dowry as well as abetment of giving or taking of dowry is an offence punishable under the Act. On the basis of the statements made before the Court by P.Ws. 1 to 3 admitting that they gave dowry, can they be tried as accused in the same trial, is the question.
From Para 10,
10. If P.Ws. 1 to 4, who were examined as witnesses, are added as accused and arrayed in the list, of the accused persons, the proceedings in respect of them shall have to be commenced afresh and thewitnesses reheard. It means they have to give evidence against themselves, which is not permissible under law. Clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution provides that no person accused of any offenceshall be compelled to be a witness against himself. This protection is available to the person accused ofan offence not merely with respect to the evidence to be given in the Court-room in the course of trial butis also available to him at the previous stages, if an accusation has been made against him which might, in the normal course, result in his prosecution. It follows that the protection is available to a person againstwhom the formal accusation has been made though the actual trial may not have commenced as yet andif such an accusation relates to the commission of an offence which in the normal course may result in prosecution. In view of the above provisions, the witnesses cannot be compelled to give evidence against themselves. Therefore, P.Ws. 1 to 4, cannot be arrayed as accused along with petitioner and others in the same proceedings. If the Court wants to proceed against the persons of giving dowry, then it has to resort to the provision under Section 7 of the Act. Section 7(1)(b) of the Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except upon its own knowledge, or a police report of the facts which constitute such offence, or a complaint by the person aggrieved by the offence or other relative of such person or by any recognized welfare institution or organization.
Further Section 7(3) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the timebeing in force, a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act.
Fundamental mistake in this case is, why police are NOT booking the Dowry givers asmushas Dowry takers in the FIR? Because in some States, Police circulars were issues precluding the Dowry givers from prosecution. So Police themselves decided that Dowry givers are not to be booked, which is totally contrary to what is said in Section 3(1).
Malreddy Ramachandra Reddy Vs C. Vanaja Reddy and Ors on 16 April 2003Citations: [2004 DMC 2 49], [2003 ALD 2 91], [2003 ALT CRI 2 253]
Other Source links:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f83ce4b0149711141d5d
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91122848/
Justice NN Tiwari had held as follows (without any legal basis):
From Para 6,
6. Learned Counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submitted that the ground for assailing the impugned order by the petitioner is wholly misconceived and baseless. From the allegations made in the complaint, it is evident that the accused persons were demanding dowry and torturing the complainant for not bringing the dowry as desired by them. The petitioner is wrongly interpreting the presents given by the parents of the complainant, as dowry, which does not come within the ambit of Section 3(1) of the Act. It has been submitted that nothing new has come in course of the inquiry or trial or there is nothing in the evidence on record to suggest that any such offence has been committed by the father of the complainant and learned Court below considering the provisions of law including the provisions of Section 7(3) of the Act has rightly rejected the petitioner’s petition.
From Para 10,
10. The petitioner has sought prosecution on the basis of the statement of giving dowry by the father of the complainant. From perusal of the statement made in the complaint, I find no such incriminating statement of voluntarily giving dowry for marriage. The statement regarding giving presents ‘UPHAR’ does not come within the ambit of definition of dowry. Moreover, the father of the complainant is an aggrieved person from whom dowry was being demanded. Such aggrieved person is protected under Section 7(3) from prosecution under the Act.
Ram Gopal Sah Vs State Of Jharkhand on 03 December 2008 (LQ Ver)
Citations: [2008 SCC ONLINE JHAR 385], [2009 AIR JHAR R 1 856], [2009 CRI LJ NOC 614 159], [2009 JLJR 1 432]
Other Source links:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea832d607dba377ff107fd
https://www.lawyerservices.in/Ram-Gopal-Sah-Versus-State-Of-Jharkhand-2008-12-03
This is a Delhi High Court judgment where a certain conclusion is made without basis. Just an earlier judgment is cited as support even that one lacks justification. Funny.
From Para 8,
8. It is thus evident that Section 7 (3) is a non obstante clause and will thus prevail on any other law for the time being in force and a statement made by a person aggrieved by the offence under this Act shall not subject him to prosecution under this Act. Thus the decision of this Court in Neera Singh (supra) is an obiter and does not constitute a binding precedent for the reasons that the provisions of DP Act 1961 were not subject matter of the dispute before the Court in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Neera Singh’s case and thus, this Court did not take into consideration the provisions under Section 7 (3) of the DP Act.
From Para 9,
9. Further there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the Respondent that the Petitioner being the father of the victim girl was not an
“aggrieved person”. Section 7(3) of the DP Act bars cognizance of a complaint against the person aggrieved by the offence. It cannot be said that only “aggrieved person” would be the victim girl. Even the father of the victim girl, who was made to give dowry, would be an aggrieved person. Similar view has been taken in Ram Gopal Sah v. State of Jharkhand, II (2009) DMC 844.
No one explains how/why should the Dowry giving criminals (as per Sec 3(1) should be protected from prosecution along with their daughter, who can be considered an aggrieved person!!!
Yashpal Kumar Vs Bhola Nath Khanna and Anr on 1 March 2012
Citations: [2012 AD DEL 3 186], [2012 DMC 2 134], [2012 SCC ONLINE DEL 1261]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160230226/
https://www.legitquest.com/case/yashpal-kumar-v-bhola-nath-khanna-another/73202
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090e75e4b014971117c483
Read through the Para 11 of this Delhi High Judgment to learn how NOT to draw conclusions from thin air u/s 482 CrPC proceedings.
11. The above observation of this Court obviously is an obiter and does not constitute a binding precedent for the reason that the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 were not the subject-matter of the dispute before the court in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Neera Singh’s case. Moreover, in the aforesaid judgment, the Court has not taken into account the protection given to a victim of offence of dowry demand as provided under Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Thus, in my view the above referred judgment is of no avail to respondent No.2. Further, on perusal of FIR No.232/2009, it transpires that as per the allegations in the complaint made by the petitioner, the demand for dowry was made by the father of respondent No.2 at the time of engagement ceremony of the petitioner when he allegedly asked the father of the petitioner to concede to his demand for dowry, failing which he would call off the marriage. From the aforesaid facts, it is obvious that the petitioner and her parents were confronted with the unenviable situation either to concede to the demand or face the loss of honour of their family in the society, and if under that fear, the petitioner and her parents conceded to the demand for dowry, they cannot be faulted as they were victims of the circumstances. Given the aforesaid facts, Section 7(3) comes to the rescue of the petitioner and in terms of the aforesaid provision, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Crux of the failed justice: Clearly from the highlighted portion of the judgment itself, one can understand the conclusion arrived by the Judge is based on the unproved allegations in the complaint which got carried as-is to the FIR. This also goes to show that the Judge has pre-judged that the allegations were true despite the fact that said allegation of demand for dowry is to be punished under Section 4 of DP Act 1961 and this being a Criminal Statute required such allegations to be proven in a Criminal Court trial with evidence. This was given a total bypass possibly in an successful attempt of harmonious interpretation but alas totally contrary to the legislature intent which being that Dowry givers are to be punished. Despite writing that Sec 7(3) gives protection only to the aggrieved person (who made the complaint) her parents are also extended protection from prosecution, which is squarely ultravires to provision, statute and legislature intent and most importantly to Principles of natural justice. Precluding the criminal who allegedly committed the crime of giving dowry even before such fact is proved in a Court trial is travesty of justice.
Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr on 20 October 2010
Citations: [2011 CRIMES 1 378], [2010 JCC 4 2780], [2011 AD DEL 1 359], [2010 SCC ONLINE DEL 3652]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61656909/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090d12e4b0149711178c8d
Further story here.
This judgment from Supreme Court hits the final nail of those persons who say a High Court does not have territorial jurisdiction beyond it’s borders. It also cites Kusum Ingots where by Supreme Court has expressed an Obiter Dicta (Judicial opinion, different from ratio decidendi, which is word of Judge based on case facts) to the same effect.
From Para 11
Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors on 7 August 201411. On a plain reading of the amended provisions in clause (2), it is clear that now the High Court can issue a writ when the person or the authority against whom the writ is issued is located outside its territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action wholly or partially arises within the court’s territorial jurisdiction. Cause of action for the purpose of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, for all intent and purpose must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The expression cause of action has not been defined either in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Constitution. Cause of action is bundle of facts which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in the suit before he can succeed. The term “cause of action” as appearing in clause (2) came up for consideration time and again before this Court.
Citations: [2014 AIR SC 3607], [2014 AJR 4 410], [2014 ALR 106 710], [2014 AWC SC 5 4947], [2014 SCSUPPL CHN 5 192], [2014 FLR 143 1015], [2014 JLJR 4 69], [2014 PLJR 4 227], [2014 SCALE 9 244], [2014 SCC 9 329], [2014 SCJ 7 307], [2014 SCT SC 4 129], [2014 SLJ SC 3 175], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 610], [2014 AIC 142 193], [2014 ALLLR 106 710], [2014 KHC 0 4507], [2014 AIOL 481], [2014 JT 9 46], [2014 SLT 6 703], [2014 SUPREME 5 689], [2015 LW 1 810], [2014 CALHN 5 192]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70426214/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af57e4b01497114161bb
This was followed in this 2-judge bench judgment of Allahabad High Court here.
If you have read through the preparation for this PIL here, the following are the documentation I created for this PIL and related Court Order and other titbits.
Here are the Main Prayers:
It is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court may be pleased to issue the following Writ Reliefs in the interest of justice, equity and in accordance to protect the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India of citizens as laid out in above section titled, “IV.GROUNDS/FACTS IN DETAIL, AS NECESSARY TO APPRECIATE THE CONTENTION OF PIL” on Urgent Basis to abate the violation of fundamental rights from eternal perpetuity.
Further, it is pointed out that in view of the Conflicting views passed by different Fora regarding the said provisions of the impugned enactments, the interference of this Court is indispensable to ensure certainty in the lives of citizens at the receiving end and consistency in the approach of the Legislature and Judiciary towards granting fair trial to the people.
In the Alternative,
Strike down appropriately and sufficiently, all relevant sections of DP Act, so as to make Giving of Dowry as no more a crime in India as all the persons who give Dowry are never going to be prosecuted at all, in the view of the bar imposed by Section 7(3) DP Act.
HMA DP3 PIL v3.0 (To Upload)And here is the Petition (only petition; There are umpteen additional affidavits that I had to file in support of my petition)
Report of Committee of RegistrarsRejection Order Passed by the Committee of Registrars:
Timeline for this PIL:
In November 2019, PIL was filed. Lots of learnings.
In December 2019, Interview was conducted by Registrar Judicial.
In January 2020, above Order was passed by the Registrar Judicial, by lying that I never appeared Party-in-person in any Court. (I have evidence to disprove this)
In February 2020, I withdrew the PIL, as I was not permitted to argue my PIL case, Party-in-person.
Next Steps
Since PIL route has been explored and all nuances in filing understood, I will explore the WP route now and later on explore Letter Petitions. And in more than one Petitions per unique prayer. Continue here.
After research of nearly 10 months from October 2018, my first PIL has taken a very good shape and has received constructive review comments/ positive feedback from various eminent MRAs and Organizations to include more relevant aspects to strengthen the prayers of the PIL. That feedback is being integrated into the PIL petition.
Meanwhile, the ideation for second PIL has begun few days back and on this page I will present the current status of the contention points being raised in this PIL supported by the legal grounds.
Abbreviations
PIL : Public Interest Litigation
PMD Act: The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936
HM Act: Hindu Marriage Act 1955
SM Act: Special Marriage Act 1954
DP Act: Dowry Prohibition Act 1961
Background (Once Upon A Time)
Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936
This enactment
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
The sum total essence of the Hindu marriage traditions and customs are legalized under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the inaugural bare act passed on 18 May, 1955 here. This page also has the latest amended Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 modified as on 14 May, 2019.
Interesting thing to note is there is not one instance of word DOWRY in the entire Hindu Marriage Act !!! VERY CRUCIAL POINT
Special Marriage Act, 1954
This Act caters to a special form of marriage in certain cases, for the registration of such and certain other marriages and for divorce.
Again not one instance of word DOWRY in the entire Special Marriage Act !!! VERY CRUCIAL POINT
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
In India, like many other countries like Bangladesh, there is a societal menace called as Dowry. There were (and are) many crimes happening around the central issue of Dowry. Dowry Demand, Dowry harassment, Dowry Death etc. Since such societal problems are to be dealt at the highest level, Legislature jumped in to outlaw/criminalize all aspects of and around Dowry in India. Thus came the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Read the inaugural Bare Act as well as the latest amended one as on 3rd December, 2018 here.
Along came the Central Rules to support the Act styled as the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 by clicking here.
There there were Two amendments to this Act one in 1984 here and another in 1986 here.
On a comparable note, even our friendly neighbor, Bangladesh also suffers from Dowry issues in their society and they have also adopted a law prohibiting all aspects of and around Dowry here and they recently, in 2018, came out with a ground-breaking amendment to the Dowry Prohibition Act. Read the same here. Unfortunately, no english version with me.
The States have passed State Rules u/s 10(1) of the Central Act. All available are posted here.
Summary of Offences from DP Act (The AS IS)
Salient Features and Criminalized/De-criminalized acts from DP Act, along side their Legislature-proposed punishment and fine.
Now, What is the Contention Point? (The Why this PIL)
Despite making a law in 1961, prohibiting above acts, along side the Legislature proposed sanctions of punishment and fine, Dowry Menace in India has NOT come down a bit.
Sources for above conclusion and innovative and proposed (meaning not-yet-implemented) solutions till date
NCRB Data Goes here.
Law Commission Reports (if any) go here.
Compulsory Registration of Marriages, 270th Report of Law Commission of India, published on 4 July, 2017
Judgments crying about continuing/increasing Dowry Menace go here.
Eminent Think tanks/Feminist rotting sinks’ conclusions go here.
My Solution (The How; The TO BE; The Eureka)
FIRST ATTACK VECTOR
My belief is that majority of false dowry cases aver that Dowry is given during/before the marriage and that is exactly the first specific aspect this PIL targets, by linking the Registration of Marriage with The Section 2 of DP Act.
As mentioned in Background section, Marriages, irrespective under which custom or tradition performed, get legal status only when they are registered with Registrar of Marriages. Section 8 of HM Act (Registration of Hindu Marriage) provides for this purpose. Similarly, under SM Act, Section 15 provides for the registration of marriages. In PMD Act, Section 6 provides for registration of marriage.
The Government also made registration of all marriages compulsory (Source here).
Now, a careful perusal of the Form-A (Application for registering a marriage with a Registrar of Marriages) indicates that there are some fields that are directly associated with the HM Act. Case in point here is some columns/fields same or similar to below.
The above fields are in the FORM-A because as part of FULL-Disclosure, both parties declare about their status, if divorced and if they can marry. See Section 15 of HM Act which is the source of these fields. Same is covered in Section 30 of SM Act and Section 4 of PMD Act.
Similarly, other fields on this form are in compliance of various provisions of HM Act or SM Act or PMD Act.
If Divorce aspect can be linked to this form via HM, SM and PMD Acts, the Dowry aspect can and should be linked to this form via DP Act and the DP Rules.
A) A new field/column to be introduced into the Marriage Application Form-A such as:
Whether any lists of presents given to bride/groom made as per Rules 2(1)/2(2) as prescribed in the the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 until the date of the application?
Documents to submit to Registrar:
Duly filled and signed Original lists of presents given to bride/groom made as per Rules 2(1)/2(2) as prescribed in the the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985.
B) A new field/column to be introduced into the Marriage Application Form-A such as:
Whether any dowry given to bride/groom or parents of bride/groom or guardian/relative of the bride/groom as prescribed in Section (2) of the the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 until the date of the application?
Documents to submit to Registrar:
Duly filled in declaration/affidavit admissible in a Court
C) A new field/column to be introduced into the Marriage Application Form-A such as:
Whether any demand was made for dowry by the bride/groom or parents of bride/groom or guardian/relative of the bride/groom until the date of the application?
Documents to submit to Registrar:
Duly filled in declaration/affidavit admissible in a Court
SECOND ATTACK VECTOR
Section 3 of DP Act requires amendment in the view of the bar imposed by Section 7(3) DP Act.
Section 3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.—
(1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or 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:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years.
(2) …..
Section 7. Cognizance of offences.—
(1) …..
(2) …..
(3) 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.
By a combined reading of provisions of Section 3 with Section 7 as highlighted above, a person who gives dowry can never be prosecuted by Courts. Legislature, in their immense wisdom, may have come to the conclusion, the dowry-giver (In 99.9% of Dowry cases, Dowry-giver is the person aggrieved and the one who gives witness statement to Police u/s 161 CrPC) is an innocent person who cannot marry off his girl child, without giving dowry. Moreover, there is not one single case in India where a person was convicted and imprisoned for giving dowry.
Unless the Legislature meant any person who becomes aware of the Dowry being exchanged, becomes aggrieved by such offence, and such Person/Good Samaritan shall not be subjected to a prosecution under this Act. If it is the former understanding, as held in landmark judgments, that the one person coming forward complaining about Dowry is the father/relative of bride, then that person shall not be subjected to any prosecution, that, to my limited knowledge of DP Act and its Objects and Reasons, is a utterly wrong interpretation. If we consider that the later interpretation is what the Legislature had in mind, then that is correct interpretation of Law. This is also in sync with Section 7(1)(b) which postulates that, a complaint by a person aggrieved by the offence is NOT same as parent or other relative of such person. Here the person could be the bride or groom themselves.
(b) no court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except upon—
(i) ….
(ii) a complaint by the person aggrieved by the offence or a parent or other relative of such person, or by any recognised welfare institution or organisation;
A third-party to both parties/families coming together in a said marriage can be excluded from prosecution in case he/she makes a complaint. Exactly, as is held in case of Accidents, a good samaritan who helps accident victims with no fear of legal prosecution.
It is clear that person mentioned in entire Section 7 refers to either bribe or groom only. A father or relative of bride who comfortably/under duress gives dowry to other party, shall be liable to prosecution u/s 3 of DP Act, as much as the receiver of dowry. [From Collective reading of Section 7(1)(b) and Section 7(3)]
Under the above circumstances, the words ‘gives’ and ‘the giving’ are otiose and have become infructous and ripe for omission by Legislature and in the interest of Justice and in the spirit of Doctrine of Separability, striking off by Hon’ble Courts.
THIRD ATTACK VECTOR
Section 2 of DP Act provides for perpetualily to the definition of Dowry by stating,
Section 2. Definition of “dowry”.—In this Act, “dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly—
(a) …
(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.
This perpetuity is disturbed by the time limits setup by Various State Rules framed by the State Legislatures u/s 10(1) of DP Act as well as Section 7 of DP Act.
AP DP Rules 1998 has Rule 5. which states:
5. Complaint:-
(a) ….
(b) ….
(c). Any complaint shall be made either on the demand of dowry or accepting dowry within a period of one year.
Section 7. Cognizance of offences.—
(1) ….
(2) Nothing in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall apply to any offence punishable under this Act.
Another rule is as follows:
10. Time for settlement of disputes: – Any offence under section 3 and section 4 or any dispute under section 6 of the Act shall be filed before expiry of one year and the same shall be finalized within two years from the date of filing.
Under the above circumstances, either the time-limiting State rules that are in violation of the section in DP Act deserves striking down and the Section needs to disallow perpetuity,
How is this Solution supported (The Thought Process)
A detailed psycho-analysis of the psyche of people who deal in Dowry is performed resulting in the following “What-if” scenarios and their consequences.
1. What if the father of bride gives dowry (Sec 3 of DP Act) but lies on the Form-A?
This should be an alert to the father of groom of possible false criminal cases u/s cruelty to wife for dowry harassment (498A IPC) and taking dowry (Sec 3 of DP Act) on immediate and distant family members and separately-living and abroad-residing relatives
2. What if the father of groom demands dowry (Sec 4 of DP Act) but lies on the Form-A?
This should be an alert to the father of bride of possible future demands for more dowry
3. What if the father of groom takes dowry (Sec 3 of DP Act) but lies on the Form-A?
This should be an alert to the father of bride of possible future demands to bring more dowry
4. What if the father of groom as well as the bride together lie on the Form-A, even in reality there is Dowry exchanged between them?
Both of them will have the consciousness that they lied on Legally admissible documents and a constant fear of no legal protection, What-If in the event there is a disruption to their wards relationship. Moreover, they will be more motivated to safe guard their side interest, by ensuring some kind of solid evidence exists (or created/manufactured) for giving/taking of dowry.
More What-If concerns, decimated:
1. What if there is a claim of dowry after the statutory limit as prescibed by the State Rules under DP Act or CrPC?
A. Courts would deem them as hopelessly barred by limitation and dismiss false/motivated cases
2. What if, a motivated Police Investigating officer files a false Charge sheet?
A. Since the IO will be bound to procure the Marriage application form as well as it’s annexures (Lists of Presents and No Dowry declaration) from the concerned Sub-registrar, he will NOT be able to file false Charge sheet, once the Form-A discloses No Dowry given/taken. The lack of evidence to support Dowry aspect itself removes any chances of allegations of 498A IPC, 304 IPC and provisions of DP Act, altogether.
3. What if, under such choking circumstances created by Legislature where Dowry taking or giving had to be reported, the parties decide to NOT register their marriage, after performing the marriage?
A. Such parties are left to their own fate and are left with no legal protections for their such acts. Not registering marriage after performing the marriage. They are a happy bunch, until the fateful event of arising of disputes between both the parties. Since the Government has mandated registration of all marriages, Courts shall take a narrow view at all the marriages claimed to have performed before certain date of notification of such mandate to be not valid marriages. Not giving any leeway or flexibility to parties coming to Court.
4. What if, Government can step in and make some stringent rules?
A. Alternatively and accommodatingly, Legislature can mandate all institutions of Marriage across religious as per their Laws, to report all marriages performed at their institutions and offices to Sub-registrar. Otherwise, no point in expecting citizens to follow the mandate of Compulsory registration of marriages and Clever citizens will bypass benevolent Laws easily, by NOT registering their marriages with Government. There is no breach of any fundamental rights here under any Articles of Constitution.
5. What if, there are no such precedents recently that say, Law should change with changing times and should reflect the sea-changes in the workings of society with such time.
A. There are recent precedents such as Striking down of 497 IPC, 494 IPC. If they can be struck down, DP Act made in 1961 can also undergo changes.
6. What if, there are no practical uses for this PIL?
A. This Act while ensuring all parties are adhering and fearing Dowry laws are left with no option but to comply with same also effectively, reduces false dowry cases filed under 498A 304B IPC and DP Act, if not brings it to zero, much to the relief of millions of Men and their families, who get routinely implicated in such false cases. This also could mean many men in armed forces can focus on their duty with out the constant nagging and panging of false criminal cases.
7. What if, a marriage is not registered, is there any issues to face? Like Nikhanama is not a valid marriage proof.
A. Passports, Visas, Joint Property Purchase, Addition to Family Ration Card, Voter ID, Aadhaar Card, child marriage, fraud, bigamy and husbands deserting their wives, women seeking their rights as wives, Universal traceability
8. What if, there are any ways to bypass tedious Marriage Registration process?
A. Notarized Affidavit+ Gazette Notification+ Property Purchase = New Identify so obtained can be used for all issues highlighted in Point 7 above.
9. What if, mandatory documents make the registration process tedious?
A. As per K. Puttaswamy judgment by Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court Aadhaar is not mandatory for registration of marriage. (1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116396036/ and 2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/129590004/)
Additional aspects
IRDAI may soon link motor insurance premium with traffic violations; pilot project in Delhi
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/personal-finance-news/irdai-may-soon-link-motor-insurance-premium-with-traffic-violations-pilot-project-in-delhi/articleshow/71023474.cms
2. Soon, your bad road manners may increase your car insurance premium
STILL TO ADD
Want to read the final (supposedly!) version of PIL filed and withdrawn? Go here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 857 access attempts in the last 7 days.
