dowry prohibition act

See whether this is useful

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 498-A IPC:

Constitutional validity of Section 498-A IPC was questioned in (1989 Cri.L.J. 242 MP) Girija Shankar Vs. State of M.P and it was found to be constitutional and not violative of Article 14. The learned court observed that Section 498 A punishes cruelty by husband or his relatives. 

The constitutional validity of this provision was again put to test in (1998 Cri.L.J. 4496) B.K. Moghe Vs. State of Maharashtra The court held,

“---- in our view there is a valid justification for classifying the husband and his relatives as a separate class for the purposes of Section 498 A IPC. Normally the offence is committed within the four walls of matrimonial home, where others have no easy access. There is no invidious discrimination nor is there anything obnoxious to the doctrine of the equality so as soon violate the guarantee enshrined in Article 14 of the constitution. There is thus no merit in contention of the petitioner.”



“….The degradation due to evil of dowry and the unconscionable demands made by greedy and unscrupulous husbands and their parents and relatives resulting in alarming number of suicidal and Dowry Deaths by women shocked the legislative conscience to such an extent that legislature deemed it necessary to provide additional provisions of law, substantive as well as procedural, to come back the evil and consequently and Section 113 A and 113 B in the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 498 A and Section 304 B in the IPC have been introduced.”

Regarding the constitutionality of Sec. 498-A IPC in (AIR 2005 SC 3100) Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India it was held by the Supreme Court:

“Provision of S. 498A of Penal Code is not unconstitutional and ultra vires. Mere possibility of abuse of a provision of law does not per se invalidate a legislation. Hence plea that S. 498A has no legal or constitutional foundation is not tenable. The object of the provisions is prevention of the dowry menace. But many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame-work.”

 

 The DP Act is different from IPC 498A