Kuljit Kaur and ors. vs Khem Singh

B.S. Yadav, J.

The facts leading to this revision petition are that Khem Singh, father of Rajdeep Kaur, filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ropar, on the allegations that the marriage of his daughter with Prem Singh accused took place on 15th March, 1981. At the time of marriage the complainant had given utensils, ornaments and clothes worth about Rs. 20, 295 and Rs. 800/ as gift to his daughter. After the marriage Prem Singh, his father Ujagar Singh, mother Ishar Kaur and sister Kuljit Kaur, Manjit Kaur and Paramjit Kaur started demanding Rs. 25,000/ more as dowry and were saying that otherwise they would not permit her (i.e. Rajdeep Kaur) to live in the house. It was further alleged in the complaint that on 21st March, 1981, Ujagar Singh asked his wife Ishar Kaur and daughters Kuljit Kaur, Manjit Kaur and Paramjit Kaur to remove the ornaments of Rajdeep Kaur which they did. On 22nd March, 1981 Prem Singh and Ujagar Singh brought Rajdeep Kaur to her parent, village and told the complainant that as had not given Rs. 25,000/ therefore, they would not keep his daughter with them.

After recording preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate summoned all the accused. Kuljit Kaur, Manjit Kaur and Paramjit Kaur, who are unmarried minor girls, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings against them.

The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in the complaint or during the preliminary evidence it was not alleged that the present petitioners received or demanded any dowry at the time of marriage of Rajdeep Kaur with Prem Singh nor there was any allegation to the effect that the amount of Rs. 25,000/ which the accused party is said to be now demanding after the marriage was agreed upon to the paid as dowry and therefore, this demand does not fall within the definition of dowry and thus no offence under Section 3, 4 and 4B of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) has been committed by the petitioners. I am of the opinion that the above argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners has force. Dowry has been defined in section 2 of the Act as follows :

"In this Act "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly :

(a) by one party to a marriage to the party to the marriage, or

(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by way other party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person;

at or before or after the marriage as consideration for the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of person to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applied,"

From the above definition it is clear that only that property can be termed as dowry which is given or agreed to be given at or before or after the marriage as consideration for the marriage of the parties concerned. Therefore, the demand of Rs. 25,000/ which is said to have been subsequently raised by Ujagar Singh and his family members will not fall within the definition of dowry.

The above conclusion of mine finds support from Inder Sain and another v. The State, 1981 Crl. L.J. 1116. According to that case also after the marriage the family members of the bridegroom raised certain demands and started harassing and maltreating the bride so that her parents would meet the demand. After quoting the definition of `dowry'' as given in the Act, Luthra, J. who decided that case, remarked as under :

"It is apparent from the definition that it is necessary that property or valuable security so as to constitute dowry must be given "as consideration for the marriage". The word "consideration" is not defined in the Act. The meaning of the word "consideration" as per Chambers'' 20th Century Dictionary, 1969, Revised Edition reprinted in 1969 is :

"motive or reason; compensation, reward, the reason or basis of a compact." Therefore, the words as a consideration for marriage in Section 2 of the Act will mean motive, reason or reward for the marriage. "For `the marriage" obviously means for the act of marrying or in other words of solemnization of marriage. Hence only those articles are `dowry'' which are given or agreed to be given as reward or reason or motive for solemnization of marriage. Anything given after the marriage, may be on account of demand from boy or his parents or relative, is only a consideration for continuance of marriage or for happy or conductive to good matrimonial relationship. Anything given after the marriage was dowry if it was agreed or promised to be given as `consideration'' for marriage''. Here there is no allegation that any article given after the marriage was on account of any promise made or agreement arrived at as consideration for marriage''. Hence offence of demand and giving of dowry was complete as soon as marriage took place on the night between April 16 and 17, 1978."

In that case also the proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was quashed. The above observations clearly apply to the present case. As mentioned earlier, the complaint does not spell out whether the demand of Rs. 25,000/, raised after the marriage is stated to be agreed upon as consideration for the marriage. The demand is said to have been made with view to smooth sailing and continuance of post marital relations. Therefore, this demand does not constitute any consideration or reward or motive for marriage.

For the forgoing reasons, I accept the present petition and quash the proceedings pending before the Magistrate qua the present petitioners.