498a - difference between stridhan vs dowry
RangaRajan J
(Querist) 04 January 2021
This query is : Resolved
Dear Respected Experts,
I am facing a criminal case u/s 498A. I need a citation to quote in my written argument which could refer a Supreme Court Judgement on what the difference between Stridhan and Dowry.
I have definition for Stridhan which is voluntarily given by bride's father by affection where as Dowry is given by DEMAND. I need citation from any High Court or Supreme Court. If you have please help me sir.
My Question:
1) I need supreme court citation for the above said reason.
Thanks in Advance Experts,
Rangarajan
Advocate Bhartesh goyal
(Expert) 04 January 2021
You may go through the judgment of Rajasthan High Court Passed by justice G.R.Mulchandani in S.B.Civil First Appeal No 161/1999 titled as Urmila vs Hari Mohan decide on 15-02-2017.
RangaRajan J
(Querist) 04 January 2021
Thank you Respected Bhartesh Goyal Sir.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 20 January 2021
You may go through following Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case
Reema Aggarwal vs Anupam And Ors on 8 January, 2004 (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1180389/)
Dowery:
It was referred in the decision from, Supreme Court of India in the case of Koppisetti Subbharao @ ... vs State Of A.P on 29 April, 2009 (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/389094/ )
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short the `Dowry Act') was introduced to combat the ever-increasing menace of dowry. The avowed object is prohibition on giving and taking of dowry. Section 2 defines "dowry". Section 4 provides the penalty for demanding "dowry", while Section 5 is a significant provision making agreement for giving or taking dowry to be void. Section 6 is another provision which reflects statutory concern for prevention of dowry, be it taking or giving. It is provided therein that pending transfer of the dowry, the person who received the dowry holds it in trust for benefit of the woman. Amendment to Section 2 by Amendment Act 43 of 1986 has made the provision clear and demand made after the marriage is a part of dowry, in view of addition of words "at or before or after the marriage". (See State of H.P. v. Nikku Ram (AIR 1996 SC 67).
Stridhan:
Honorable Supreme Court of India in the case Bhaskar Lal Sharma & Anr vs Monica on 27 July, 2009 (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1675377/) has discussed streedhan as under:
At the outset, we may notice as to what is `Streedhana' In Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada [(1997) 2 SCC 397], the meaning of Stridhana has been taken from Mayne's Hindu Law & Usage (13th Edn.). It was opined:
"9. A woman's power of disposal, independent of her husband's control, is not confined to saudayika but extends to other properties as well. Devala says: "A woman's maintenance (vritti), ornaments, perquisites (sulka), gains (labha), are her stridhana. She herself has the exclusive right to enjoy it. Her husband has no right to use it except in distress...." In N.R. Raghavachariar's Hindu Law -- Principles and Precedents, (8th Edn.) edited by Prof. S. Venkataraman, one of the renowned Professors of Hindu Law para 468 deals with "Definition of Stridhana". In para 469 dealing with "Sources of acquisition" it is stated that the sources of acquisition of property in a woman's possession are: gifts before marriage, wedding gifts, gifts subsequent to marriage etc. Para 470 deals with "Gifts to a maiden". Para 471 deals with "Wedding gifts" and it is stated therein that properties gifted at the time of marriage to the bride, whether by relations or strangers, either Adhiyagni or Adhyavahanika, are the bride's stridhana. In para 481 at page 426, it is stated that ornaments presented to the bride by her husband or father constitute her Stridhana property. In para 487 dealing with "powers during coverture" it is stated that saudayika meaning the gift of affectionate kindred, includes both Yautaka or gifts received at the time of marriage as well as its negative Ayautaka. In respect of such property, whether given by gift or will she is the absolute owner and can deal with it in any way she likes. She may spend, sell or give it away at her own pleasure.
10. It is thus clear that the properties gifted to her before the marriage, at the time of marriage or at the time of giving farewell or thereafter are her stridhana properties. It is her absolute property with all rights to dispose at her own pleasure. He has no control over her stridhana property. Husband may use it during the time of his distress but nonetheless he has a moral obligation to restore the same or its value to his wife. Therefore, stridhana property does not become a joint property of the wife and the husband and the husband has no title or independent dominion over the property as owner thereof."
It was furthermore held:
"...The expression "entrustment" carries with it the implication that the person handing over any property or on whose behalf that property is handed over to another, continues to be its owner. Entrustment is not necessarily a term of law. It may have different implications in different contexts. In its most general significance, all its imports is handing over the possession for some purpose which may not imply the conferment of any proprietary right therein. The ownership or beneficial interest in the property in respect of which criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed, must be in some person other than the accused and the latter must hold it on account of some person or in some way for his benefit...."
Guest
(Expert) 20 January 2021
No Doubt an Good Job " very rarely " by Rajendra K Goyal
