LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Mallik Karra (Done with AIBE)     06 April 2011

Dowry taunts and jibes do not amount to harassment: Court

A Delhi court has held that "mere taunts and jibes for bringing insufficient dowry" does not amount to causing harassment to woman or subjecting her to cruelty for dowry, unless there is a persistent demand for it aimed at forcing her to meet it.

 

 

Metropolitan Magistrate Shunali Gupta gave this ruling while acquitting a railway employee along with his mother in a 17-year-old case of causing harassment to his post graduate teacher (PGT) wife for dowry.

 

 

"Taunting for not bringing sufficient dowry is distinct from demand of dowry and should not be confused with (the offence itself)," the magistrate said.

 

 

"Though, taunting for bringing insufficient dowry is also an uncivilized act but does not come within the purview of the section 498-A IPC, sufficient to constitute the offence i.e., cruelty to the complainant with respect to non fulfillment of demand of dowry," said the magistrate.

 

"With reference to section 498-A IPC, the sine quo non (essential requisition) is that there must be a demand in contradiction with mere taunts, jibes and that demand should be with a view to pressurize the complainant/her relatives to meet the demand for dowry," she said.

 

 

The court also reasoned that "unhappy matrimonial life per se does not imply that there has been commission of offence of harassment for dowry and cruelty."

 

 

"To adjudge the guilt under the penal provision, it has always to be beyond the shadow of doubt that is upon impeachable, cogent evidence which gives no escape but to accept commission of offence alone," the court said.

 The court gave the ruling in a criminal case lodged by Ragini, who was married to railway employee Jitender Kumar, a resident of Mangolpuri area in North West Delhi area, in 1992.

 

 

Soon after her marriage, she had approached the Mangolpuri police alleging that her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law have been harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry.

 

 

She even told police that she was being administered slow poison by her husband and in-laws due to which she had to be repeatedly taken to hospital, albeit by her in-laws themselves.

 

 

Even while hurling a string of allegations against her husband and in-laws, she told the police that "she is still ready to reside with her husband if he behaves nicely with her."

 

 

Ragini also told that "the jewellery given by her parents in marriage is in her possession and the jewellery given by her in laws is with them only."

The matter was first examined by the Crime Against Woman Cell, which recommended registration of the FIR against Jitender and his mother, recommending, however, no case against his brother.

 

 

The court, however, after a long protracted trial, acquitted Jitender and his mother after finding hosts of inconsistencies in Ragini's statements and depositions.

https://www.indianexpress.com/news/dowry-taunts-and-jibes-do-not-amount-to-harassment-court/772418/



Learning

 2 Replies

Ambika (NA)     06 April 2011

It is an act of extreme emotional and mental cruelty  : taunting and jibing about insufficient dowery. It makes a woman's life hell, hearing taunts of whatever nature including that of dowry. Doawry taunts have inherent threats also, rather hidden threats which is likely to make a woman's life insecure in her matrimonial home. 

In my opinion, the honorable judge possibly did not realize the possiblity of forcing indirectly through taunting...it is humiliation of one of the worst sorts. 

1 Like

Bhartiya No. 1 (Nationalist)     07 April 2011

Decision varies and depends on the notion of the judge sitting, so recently Apex court has observed that

 

 

Recently SC has observed that it is the LAW which must prevail over equity.

The Supreme Court has ruled that law should prevail over equity and that judges should not legislate as it would be violative of the basic democratic principles.

 

A bench of justices Markandeya Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra in a recent judgement said courts should not interpret rules on the basis of equity.

"In other words, once we depart from the literal rule, then any number of interpretations can be put to a statutory provision, each judge having a free play to put his own interpretation as he likes.

 

"This would be destructive of judicial discipline, and also the basic principle in a democracy that it is not for the judge to legislate as that is the task of elected representatives of the people. Even if the literal interpretation results in hardship or inconvenience, it has to be followed," the bench said.

 

"In other words, the literal rule of interpretation simply means that we mean what we say and we say what we mean. If we do not follow the literal rule of interpretation, social life will become impossible, and we will not understand each other. Life will become impossible," the bench added.

 

Courtesy: Article at LCI 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register