Patna High Court: The present revision was filed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28-6-2016 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Samastipur affirmed the order of conviction and sentence under challenge passed by the S.D.J.M., Dalsingsarai in convicting and sentencing petitioner and other two accused persons for rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs 1,000 each and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 498-A of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Petitioner was also convicted and sentenced under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘DP Act’) with rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs 1,000, in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for two months.
Bibek Chaudhuri, J., opined that for rearing and maintenance of a newly born baby, if the husband demanded money from the paternal home of the wife, such demand did not come withing the fold of the definition of ‘dowry’. The Court held that charge under Section 498-A of IPC was not established against petitioner.
Background
In the present case, petitioner’s marriage was solemnized with Respondent 2-wife in accordance with Hindu Rites and customs in 1994. In the said wedlock, Respondent 2 gave birth to three children, two boys and one girl. Respondent 2 submitted that three years after the birth of the said girl child, i.e., in 2004, petitioner and all other matrimonial relations of Respondent 2 demanded Rs 10,000 to be brought from her father’s house in order to rear and maintain the said girl child. Respondent 2 submitted that she was tortured for nonfulfillment of petitioner’s demand and therefore, she filed a complaint under Section 498-A of IPC read with Section 4 of DP Act on 16-6-2004 against petitioner and other matrimonial relations which was registered in 2004 in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Dalsingsarai.
The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and after noting the evidence of the complainant, opined that there was no demand for dowry during the first ten years of her marriage. Respondent 2 was staying happily in her matrimonial home with petitioner but three years after the birth of the girl child, petitioner and other accused persons demanded Rs 10,000 from Respondent 2 for rearing the child and for her maintenance.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The issue for consideration before this Court was “whether any demand for proper maintenance of a child of the parties to a wife by husband and his family members amounted to dowry?”.
The Court relied on Bachni Devi v. State of Haryana, (2011) 4 SCC 427, wherein it was stated that the definition of the expression ‘dowry’ contained in Section 2 of DP Act could not be confined merely to the “demand” of money, property, or valuable security “made at or after the performance of marriage”. Any money, property or valuable security given, as a consideration for marriage, “before, at or after” the marriage would be covered by the expression “dowry” and this definition in Section 2 must be read wherever the expression “dowry” occurred in the Act.
The Court thus opined that the essential element of dowry was payment or demand of money, property or valuable security given or agreed to be given as “consideration of marriage”.
The Court opined that Respondent 2 did not make out any case within the scope of clause (a) of the explanation to Section 498-A of IPC. She made out a case of willful harassment, where the harassment was caused to fulfill unlawful demand of the husband and other matrimonial relations.
The Court relied on Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330, wherein the Supreme Court held that in order to establish a charge under Section 498-A of IPC, the prosecution was required to establish that the women was subjected to cruelty continuously and persistently or at-least in close proximity of time of lodging of complaint. Petty quarrel could not be termed as cruelty to attract the provision under Section 498-A of IPC.
The Court noted that in the present case, it was clearly stated by Respondent 2 in her complaint as well as her evidence that for the maintenance of the girl child, petitioner demanded Rs 10,000. The Court stated that both petitioner and Respondent 2 came from marginalized Section of the society. There was 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 were generally sent to the matrimonial home after the child becomes three to six months old. During this period, entire expenditure was borne by the “Mayka of the married lady”. The Court stated that it was not in a position to consider whether this prevalent culture was good or bad because moral assessment was not the duty of the Court.
The Court thus opined that for rearing and maintenance of a newly born baby, if the husband demanded money from the paternal home of the wife, such demand did not come withing the fold of the definition of ‘dowry’. The Court held that charge under Section 498-A of IPC was not established against petitioner. Further, charge under Section 4 of DP Act could not rely because of the fact that there was no demand of dowry from the parents or other relatives or guardians of Respondent 2 as a consideration of marriage between her and petitioner.
Thus, the Court allowed the present revision and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28-6-2016. The Court further ordered that petitioner should be released from his respective bail bonds.
[Naresh Pandit v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 815, Order dated 21-3-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Soni Shrivastava, Ravi Bhardwaj, Gaurav Singh, Advocates
For the Respondents: Asha Kumari, APP
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Totally waste of time of Hona’ble court. More than 10000 was spent during the trial period of both parties as their respective councilor fees. Why people go to court for such a petty expense for child rearing. They should decide their matter through mutual understanding basis. No need to waste time of Hon’ble court and personal. As lots of important cases are already pending in courts.