Gifts to babies not dowry: SC
Posted by mynation on May 20th, 2008
New Delhi, May 19: Gifts for a newborn, demanded by a woman’s husband and his family, cannot be regarded as dowry, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The court acquitted Narayanamurthy from Karnataka whose wife committed suicide over alleged demands for such gifts.
The woman, Jagadeshwari, set herself ablaze in her husband’s house on November 11, 1990, after alleged harassment by him and her in-laws for failing to get enough dowry.
After a daughter was born to Jagadeshwari, her in-laws had demanded a gold ring and silverware for the thread-changing ceremony that was to be held in the child’s maternal home.
But Jagadeshwari’s family could not gift the gold ring, following which Narayanamurthy refused to participate in the ceremony and went back to his house.
According to the prosecution, Jagadeshwari was being harassed from day one of her marriage in 1989 for bringing insufficient dowry. She had got Rs 4,000 in cash and five gold ornaments from her family.
Jagadeshwari stayed with her parents for five months during her pregnancy and gave birth to the girl there.
A few days after the thread-changing ceremony, Jagadeshwari’s brother Ravichandra took her and the child back to Narayanamurthy’s house and assured her in-laws that their demands would be met in a short time. They, however, continued to harass Jagadeshwari, the prosecution said.
About a week before killing herself, Jagadeshwari went back to her parents’ house and told them she had been assaulted. But her parents persuaded her to go back to Narayanamurthy.
Jagadeshwari’s in-laws — Kannappa and Shivabhushanamma — and Narayanamurthy were tried under sections 498A (cruelty) and 304B (dowry death within seven years of marriage) of the IPC and sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Father-in-law Kannappa died while trial was on.
The trial court acquitted Narayanamurthy and his mother in April 2000 for lack of evidence.
On appeal by the state, Karnataka High Court convicted the husband under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.
He was also sentenced to another two years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A of the IPC and fined Rs 5,000.
The high court, however, acquitted him of offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the dowry prohibition act. It also upheld Shivabhushanamma’s acquittal.
The apex court, which acquitted Narayanamurthy, too, said though it had been proven that Jagadeshwari’s father had gifted the silverware to Narayanamurthy at the ceremony, “such gifts are not enveloped within the ambit of dowry”.
“We agree with the high court that the evidence against the mother is insufficient and inconsistent to convict her,” it said.
The court said, even otherwise, “mere evidence of cruelty and harassment” does not make a case under Section 304B of the IPC (dowry death within seven years of marriage).
Do you Dare ? to Speak TRUTH
May 20th, 2008 at 9:32 am
June 17th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Which only resulted in iron hand cuffing like a herded criminal and lying in illegal custody. I had been caught by the police on March 2006, and kept for nine days in police lockup and one day in Correctional Home, Howrah and released on bail. She filed false FIRs and filed under section 125 Cr. P.C., 498A, 406 IPC, 34, 354, 379, 506, 323, 341, 504 and section 3 & 4 of Dowry Probation Act etc. against me, my patents, brother and sister from the Court of 7th and 4th Judicial Magistrate at Howrah. Now, no one here to help me from this day to day harassment, lost couple of good jobs, running once in two months from Pudhucherry (formerly Pondicherry) to Howrah.
The wife and her parents even not intimated him the child birth and somehow when he come to know the child birth he requested to send a snap of the child which was also not heard. For the new born the father send some gift which was also returned by the wife and her parents. Their cruelty reached at Himalayan peak when she lodged a complaint using the weapon of dowry and domestic violence act (DVA) and several other criminal section against husband and in-laws, the in-laws who never interfered her life. The question is if she really met cruelty by the hands of husband and his relatives why she had not opted to file a complaint in the jurisdiction police station which was only in walkable distance. She opted to file complaint in the Howrah police station and filed a divorce and succeeded to get an expartee decree within three months of filing which is very impossible as per marriage law. The husband had not given time to file counter or for a counseling. When husband was attending for maintenance case and came out of the court he was arrested and handcuffed and remained in the custody for eight days and ninth day presented before the judicial magistrate and then kept one day in judicial custody and latter bailed out. The wife atlest shown curtsy by not opposing the anticipatory bail of in-laws.
The women how she forget the sweetness of togetherness, how she forget the sweet face of her husband which is now also in front of her in the form of child.
THE MEN WAS CRUSHED IN THE HANDS OF WOMEN. The men who is a M.Sc., M.Phil., earning sufficiently was now staring the sky with no hope for justice. His parents are weeping and sister, brother still in a stage of shock.
The reward paid by the wife to her husband is the only result of misusing of newly formulated laws. The court at Howrah which have no jurisdiction neither to try the suit for divorce nor for the criminal offence as the couple married at Pudhucherry and last resided place at Bangalore, where both of them were employed and as such alleged offence held in Bangalore. So the decree which is passed by the Howrah Court is improper and the complaint also liable to be quashed. But these all will happen in future.
Wake and do something for men otherwise similar trouble tomorrow you also have to face. For this not only togetherness of men required but the togetherness of women also required.
M. Rathina Sabapathy,
Cell: 9894669932
sabapathy@rediffmail.com