Here are the Gujarat Dowry Prohibition Rules 2003
Gujarat Dowry Prohibition Act Rules 2003Main Central Act is here.
Index of State Rules are made available here.
Here are the Gujarat Dowry Prohibition Rules 2003
Gujarat Dowry Prohibition Act Rules 2003Main Central Act is here.
Index of State Rules are made available here.
Here are the Chhattisgarh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 2004
Chhattisgarh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 2004Main Central Act is here.
Index of State Rules are made available here.
Here are the Delhi Dowry Prohibition Rules, 2000
Delhi-Dowry-Prohibition-Rules-2000Main Central Act is here.
Index of State Rules are made available here.
Here are the available State Rules pertaining to Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Here is the 1990 edition of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (High Court of A.P.).
THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE AND CIRCULAR ORDERS, 1990Four judgments of AP High Court that I could find related to Rule 37, are the following:
You can take a look at my 498A case here, where I have used Rule 37 successfully and am filing (absent) petitions via Registered Post – Acknowledge Due to the filing section.
The Amendments made to AP Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 are listed below.
2023-02-17 Amendment to CrRP 1990Find the Civil Rules of Practice of AP High Court here.
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has laid down the procedure to be follow in Delhi by Police in regards to the CrPC Section 41A.
Amandeep Singh Johar Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 7 February, 2018
Here is the ‘The Andhra Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1998’
The Dowry Prohibition Act Rules, 1998Main Central Act is here.
Index of State Rules are made available here.
In this quash judgment, hon’ble High Court of AP has held that
Learned Counsel would submit that the specific allegations made in the complaint, against the petitioners herein, relate to the demand of dowry attracting the ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Counsel would refer to Rule 10, of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules, to contend that since the allegation of demand of dowry against respondents 2 to 4 are at the time of the marriage which, even according to the complaint, took place in December 1996 and as the complaint was filed eight years thereafter in December 2004, it was barred by limitation.
And the Shri Ramesh Ranganathan J (as his Lorship was called then) held that,
Tammineedi Bhaskara Rao & Others vs State of A.P. rep., by Public Prosecutor & Others on 18 November, 2006There is considerable force in the submission of Sri K. Jagdishchandra Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner that, since Rule 10 of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules prescribes a limitation of one year, the complaint filed eight years after the marriage is barred by limitation. Rule 10 of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1998 provides that any offence under Section 3 and 4 shall be filed before expiry of one year.
Shri Ramesh Rangarajan is the ‘Longest serving Acting CHief Justice of AP High Court. Read article here.
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,
Chembeti Srilakshmi Vs Chembeti Sreenu on 7 January, 2016As 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.
Here are the Dowry Prohibition Act along with Rules of 1985
The Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985.
Bad Behavior has blocked 636 access attempts in the last 7 days.