Rajeshwar Singh - (1.) THE wife filed a complaint in the court of the Magistrate against the husband. THE, husband through this application under Sec. 482 CrPC prays for the complaint being quashed.
(2.) THE complaint in short is that the husband after marriage made a demand for dowary. THE wife's parents could not fulfil it. THE wife was treated cruelly. THE dowry that was given in the marriage was not returned to wife, so she filed this complaint praying that the husband be punished under Section 498-A of the IPC for being cruel to the wife, for demanding dowry in contravention of the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act and he be directed to transfer all the dowry given to the husband in kind and cash at the time of marriage. It was argued that there is limitation of one year and this complaint cannot proceed as being time barred, demand for money made after the marriage will not constitute demand for dowry as it is not consideration for marriage and the wife cannot claim back the dowry given at the time of marriage till divorce is effected. For supporting these arguments, the case of Inder Sain v. The State, 1981 Criminal Law Journal 1116 decided by a single Judge of Delhi High Court, was relied upon. The aforesaid case of Inder Sain is of no assistance because since then Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 has been amended by Act 63 of 1984 which came in force on 2-10-85 and by Act 43 of 1986 which came in force on 19-11-86. Formerly dowry was defined as property given as consideration for the marriage. But these words "as consideration for the marriage" which were relied upon in the aforesaid ruling, have been omitted and at their place the words " in connection with the marriage" have been substituted. The limitation of one year that was provided in Section 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, referred to in the ruling, has also been deleted. Now there is no limitation in Sec. 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sec. 7 (2) provides that Chapter 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which relates to limitation, will not apply to the offences punishable under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
(3.) NOW dowry means any property given or agreed to be given by the parents of a party to the marriage at marriage or before marriage or at any time after marriage in connection with the marriage. It has been said in the complaint that the husband has demanded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the wife's father and on not being given he became angry, tortured the wife and threatened to go for another marriage. So prima facie it appears that the amount was being demanded in connection with the marriage and it was a demand for dowry even though it was demanded after marriage. Such a demand has been made punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The argument that the wife cannot claim back the amount given as dowry from the husband till dissolution of marriage, seems to have no force, when Sec. 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act says that all the dowry given must be transferred to the wife within three months and on failure to do so the husband can be punished and the court can direct that the dowry be transferred to the woman. This section does not provide that it is possible only on dissolution of marriage. Moreover, in the case of Pratibha Rani, (1985) 2 Supreme Court Cases 370 it was said that it was Stridhan and its misappropriation amounts to an offence.;