New Delhi: If a custom warrants a woman’s parents to look after her newborn baby, the same would not be akin to “dowry demand” under the law or cruelty in case the husband demands fulfilment of the said practice.
With this observation the Patna High Court last week set aside a dowry harassment case against a man who was sentenced to three-year imprisonment by a district court for asking his in-laws for financial assistance for the maintenance of his girl child.
In doing so, the court held that since money sought for the child’s maintenance was not in “consideration of marriage”, it did not amount to dowry under the law because the community the couple hailed from followed a customary practice in which the wife’s parents were required to look after a newborn.
In the case before the court, the wife had alleged that three years after the birth of their child in 2001, her husband one Naresh Pandit made a demand of Rs 10,000 from her, to “rear and maintain” their girl child.
She alleged that she was tortured over non-fulfilment of the demand. “Ladki ke palan-poshan ke liye das hazar rupay leke aao” (get Rs 10,000 for the girl’s rearing), Naresh had told his wife, according to her complaint. The complainant also stated that she was allegedly tortured in relation to the amount, which she claimed was dowry, and filed a FIR.
Subsequently, the district court had found the husband guilty of the charges, and sentenced him to three-year imprisonment and also imposed a fine.
However, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri of the Patna High Court has now said that the demand made by Naresh for rearing their child did not amount to dowry as it is an established “custom” for the child-rearing expenditure to be born by the wife’s parental home in the community. This could not be said to be dowry, as this was a custom prevalent in the community and was in relation to child rearing and not marriage, reasoned the court.
“There is also a ritual amongst Hindus especially in villages to keep their daughter in their paternal home during pregnancy… During the period, entire expenditure is born by the Mayka of the married lady,” it observed.
“…[F]or rearing and maintenance of a newly born baby, if the husband demands money from the paternal home of the wife, such demand does not come within the fold of dowry,” it added.
Justice Chaudhuri reasoned that the court was not concerned with whether this ritual was desirable as “moral assessment is not the duty of the court”.
The complaint rested on the basis that the petitioner had asked the wife to arrange the amount from her parents in lieu of rearing the child.
Section 2 (i) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 defines it as “any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given directly or indirectly…”. To qualify as dowry, property may be given by a spouse or their parents.
The high court noted that even though the definition of cruelty does not include dowry directly, courts have interpreted dowry to fall under “cruelty” under criminal law.
This means that if one is held to be liable for dowry, they are also automatically liable for cruelty.
The high court said that dowry has been expanded from the restrictive meaning in the definition and can include such money / property / security which is given as “consideration for marriage”.
Since there was no demand for the money as a “consideration” of marriage (but only for child-rearing), a dowry case is not made out, the court added.
The petitioner argued before the court that the allegations were extremely general and omnibus in nature, and not all exchanges between a married couple can be said to be cruelty. He also said the proceedings were initiated only because another FIR was filed by him against the wife alleging “theft of household articles”.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: How courts established that only saptapadi, not kanyadaan, is essential for Hindu marriage