UNION OF INDIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The expression 'dowry' in ancient times applied to that which a wife brought her husband in marriage, goods given in marriage or the marriage portion May be, it was conceived of as a nest-egg or security for the wife in her matrimonial home, especially since, most of the systems regarded a married woman as an addition to her husband's family But in course of time, it assumed a different shape and degenerated into a subject of barter acceptance of the woman as a wife depending on what her parents would pay s dowry, varying with the qualification and the status of the bridegroom's family As felicitously put by Krishnaswami Aiyar, C J on behalf of the Full Bench in Sundaram Iyer v.

(2.) Possibly, a social revolution is needed to put an end to the menace Refusal by the bride's father to pay dowry refusal of the girls to get married if dowry is insisted upon and the attaching of a social stigma to those who demand dowry can alone ultimately put an end to this system or at least reduce its prevalence Obviously, the enactment of a law prohibiting this evil should go A long way in tackling the menace The Parliament in its wisdom enacted the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Act No 28 of 1961) the objects and reasons were set out as follows -"the object of this Bill is to prohibit the evil practice of giving and taking of dowry This question has been engaging the attention of the Government for some time past and one of the methods by which this problem which is essentially a social one was sought to be tackled was by the conferment of improved property rights on women by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 It is however felt that a law which makes the practice punishable and at the same time ensures that any dowry if given does ensure for the benefit of the wife will go a long way to educating public opinion and to the eradication of this evil There has also been a persistent demand for such a law both in and outside Parliament hence the present Bill It however takes care to exclude presents in the form of clothes ornaments etc which are customary at marriages provided the value thereof does not exceed Rs 2 000 Such a provision appears to be necessary to make the law workable"

(3.) The Act came into force on 1 7 1961 But it was found that even an enacted law did not help in eradicating or at least lessening the menace This Court had occasion to say in shri Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi that