Even If There Was No Demand At Or Before Wedding, Subsequent Demand Sufficient For It To Be Considered ‘Dowry’: Kerala HC
By-Naresh
The Kerala High Court recently observed that if there was no demand for dowry before or at the time of marriage, a subsequent demand is sufficient to attract the definition of ‘dowry’ under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The bench comprising Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Sophy Thomas observed thus while refusing to accept the argument raised by Kiran Kumar, the convict in the Vismaya dowry death case, that there was no demand for dowry, prior to the marriage.
Taking note of the material available on record, the court noted that the subsequent conduct on part of the convict clearly showed that after the marriage, he was abusing and assaulting the deceased for dowry.
Court was dealing with an application filed by Kumar seeking an interim order for suspension of his 10 years sentence. Kumar was convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in May this year for driving his wife to suicide by harassing her for dowry.
The application was moved in a criminal appeal that Kumar filed against his conviction and sentence. He alleged that his wife committed suicide because she was longing for a child and feared that she would not conceive without the blessings of her father which she could not get.
However, considering the oral and documentary evidence produced before it, the court held that it was prima facie proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment at the hands of the convict.
Court also refused to grant any relief to the convict in view of a mobile conversation that happened prior to the marriage between the convict and the deceased which showed that the convict never demanded a car.
Court said, “If at all there was no demand, prior to the marriage, the subsequent conduct from the part of the appellant, as evidenced from the documents and depositions of witnesses, will clearly show that after the marriage, he was abusing and assaulting the deceased on account of the car given and the deficit of gold ornaments given from her family”.
Moreover, Court held that the argument put forth by the counsel for the convict that, there has to be an agreement at the time of marriage in view of the words, ‘agreed to be given’ occurring in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was not tenable.
“…the amended definition of dowry in Section 2 of the Act, includes not only the period, before and at the time of marriage, but also the period subsequent to the marriage,” it clarified.
Therefore, the Court refused to suspend Kumar’s sentence during the pendency of the appeal moved by him.
Court held that there was no patent infirmity in the order of the trial court which had found Kumar guilty of committing offences punishable under Sections 498A (subjecting a woman to cruelty for dowry), 306 (abetment of suicide) and 304B (dowry death) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
23-year-old Vismaya, an Ayurveda medical student, was found dead in her matrimonial house at Sasthamkotta in Kollam district on June 21, 2021. Her husband Kiran Kumar, former assistant motor vehicle inspector, was held guilty of perpetrating dowry-related cruelties on Vismaya and sent to 10-years-jail for it.
Leave a Reply