Advocates Soni Shrivastava, Ravi Bhardwaj, and Gaurav Singh appeared for the petitioner (man).
Additional Public Prosecutor Asha Kumari appeared for the State.
The Patna High Court recently observed that when a husband requests money from his wife's parents to meet the expenses of rearing the couple's newborn child, such a demand does not amount to dowry harassment.
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri made the observation while setting aside a man's conviction under Section 498A (cruelty to married women) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (penalty for demanding dowry).
"For 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 the definition of 'dowry,'" the Court held.
The couple before the Court had got married in 1994 and had three children.
The wife claimed that three years after their daughter's birth in 2001, the husband and his relatives demanded ₹10,000 from her father to meet the expenses of taking care of the girl child. The wife further alleged that she was subjected to torture for failing to fulfill this demand.
A trial court convicted the husband on finding that he was guilty of dowry harassment and subjecting his wife to cruelty. An appellate court upheld the trial court verdict, prompting the man to approach the High Court for relief by filing a revision petition.
The High Court noted that the main question before it was whether any demand for money to support the proper maintenance of the couple's child amounts to a dowry demand or not.
The Court examined Section 2(i) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which defines dowry, and emphasized that a dowry demand would necessarily involve a demand for money, property, or valuable assets as a consideration for marriage.
"The essential element of dowry is payment or demand of money, property or valuable security given or agreed to be given as consideration of marriage," the Court said.
It went on to observe that the husband's request for ₹10,000, in this case, was not linked to marriage, but was for the maintenance of the couple's daughter.
Therefore, such a request would not fall under the definition of dowry as per the 1961 Act, the Court held.
The Court further observed that the charge against the accused man of cruelty under Section 498A (b) of the IPC would also not survive since the definition of cruelty under this clause is linked to the definition of dowry under the 1961 Act (as laid down by earlier judgments).
The Court noted that explanation (b) of Section 498A of the IPC does not explicitly contain the term "dowry", but only refers to harassment to coerce a woman or her relative to meet any "unlawful demand for any property or valuable security."
However, legal precedents have established that such harassment should be considered within the definition of dowry under Section 2(i) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Court explained.
Notably, the bench also noted that the couple before the Court came from a community where the expenses of newborn children are generally borne by the "Mayka" or the married woman's parental home till the child becomes three-six months of age.
"There is also a ritual amongst the Hindus especially in villages to keep their daughter in their parental home during pregnancy till the birth of the child and the mother and child are generally sent to the matrimonial home after the child becomes three to six months old. During this period, the entire expenditure is borne by the 'Mayka (parental home) of the married lady'," the Court observed.
The Court added that it was not examining whether such a culture is good or bad. Moral assessment is not the duty of the Court, it said.
The Court proceeded to set aside the man's conviction in the present case and allowed his revision plea.
For Read the Court Order contact me on my Facebook Page. Thank you 🙏