Bridegroom arrested after father demands dowry

With kind permission from Roshni B, I share this news item of The Hindu in her thread that shows the plight of some metro women in matrimonial home:

Three of family get death for woman's murder

Jiby Kattakayam

NEW DELHI: A sessions court here has handed out death sentence to the husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of a 32-year-old woman whom they killed in the presence of her three children for demanding transfer of a piece of land to her kids.

In his order, Additional Sessions Judge Dinesh Kumar Sharma of the Saket court noted that the case displayed the mentality of an honour killing where “if a lady raises her voice in the family, the family gets together and does her to death”.

The sentence comes hot on the heels of a Supreme Court observation that “honour killings” fall within the category of “rarest of rare” cases deserving capital punishment.

Holding that the sentence would act as a deterrent, Mr. Sharma said: “It has been held by the Apex Court that honour killings fall within the category of rarest of rarest cases deserving death sentence. I consider that courts while delivering judgments and awarding punishments are required to give a message to society that the mentality of a certain class, that a woman is not to be allowed to raise her voice, has to change. It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices which are a slur on our nation. In such cases, death penalty is necessary as a deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilised behaviour. A message should go to society that if an innocent woman is killed in such a brutal manner, the gallows await them.”

On October 15, 2007, the victim, Urmila, was beaten with bricks and strangulated by her husband Surender aided by his mother Lakhpati and brother Narender. On October 17, the police were informed about a body lying at a house in Humayunpur village of South Delhi.

On reaching the house, the police noticed foul smell and on opening a diwan, which doubled up as a bed and a cupboard, found the body of Urmila with 14 injuries from head to toe.

Urmila's three children, aged between four and nine years, who were witnesses to the gory crime recorded their statements before a magistrate implicating their father, grandmother and uncle. However, during trial the three children turned hostile, but the judge disregarded this noting that they were “won over” and it was not “difficult to understand why these innocent children” turned hostile.

Referring to the “trust” imposed on in-laws by the arranged marriage system in the country, Mr. Sharma noted: “A father marries off his daughter with the belief that his daughter would be protected by her husband and in-laws. An innocent girl also goes to totally unknown persons under the belief and assumption that she would remain safe and sound there… If such a bride is killed in such a brutal manner by all the in-laws together in furtherance of common intention, what could be more brutal or diabolic? This is not the murder of a woman, this is a murder and assault on the dignity of the entire womanhood.”

Means girl's father is so poor he is not capable of giving a mere TV. Instead Boy's father ask TV plus 20 lakh for car ???????????? Direct car of 20 lakh. Nothing in between ? From a man who is not able for giving a mere TV ?

There are costly TVs also in market,priced above Rs.30,000/,of very famous brands.Go to any rich man's house.You will see one in each bedroom of the house.Can a poor man afford such brands?

2) Shaadi wala hi din mila tha dahej mangne ke liye ?

Yes it's common blackmailing done by "larke wale" in many weddings,where they suddenly demand demand on telephone,before bringing the baraat,and sometimes just before the 7th phera,after completeing the 1st 6 pheras.

Geeta colony is place where generally richer people live compare to nangloi.

So,you admit that this middle class man of Nangloi demanded dowry from a rich family of Geeta Colony

Here I completely agree with your views.Somehow I cannot digest adulterous acts

But are you sure he was a boyfriend,ie,a lover?He might be just a casual friend.

Is it your case?

Why are people debating on the value of the dowry asked and capacity of the bride’s father to meet the demand?   Do they mean that dowry demand is justified, if the bride’s party can afford it? Or do they think that alleging demand of such a large amount was not probable and that the bride’s party was making false allegations?

In the first place, big or small, demand of dowry is bad enough. And why should they make the demand at such an awkward moment? Is it not blackmailing? If the bride’s party is making false allegation, why should they wait until the arrival of barat and exchange of garlands?

Madam Meenal Bahadur cannot digest adulterous acts. Adultery by whom, man or woman? Under IPC Sec. 497 an adulterous woman will go scot-free.  Not only that! Even the Supreme Court has justified it under Article 15(3) of the Constitution. The said Article says that special provisions can be made for women and children. I know reservation of seats in an Educational Institution can be called a “special provision”. Is freedom for adultery also a “provision”, special or otherwise? Sec 497 is there since 1860, 90 years before our Constitution. It was there in the original draft of Lord Macaulay made in 1835 or so. Such a provision did not exist in English Law.

Meenal u gave me 19 thumbs down today. Can u make it 20 for the sake of efficient record keeping ?

Sure...

P.S-I don't like to hurt anyone constantly by giving thumbs down.But I am forced to

Gave you one just now...

Thanks for being so obedient

well said, Meenal

LOL ! "Well Said Meenal" LOL :) :) ... Uma, so now can you give me some thumbs down from your ID ? I know u have done ur duties from another ! Then you can say "I am forced to" and Meenal will say "Well said" and give your ID thumbs up ... LOL

For the benefit of Madam Meenal I have attached the Supreme Court judgment. The Apex body nor the Parliament has revised the judgment/law during the last 57 years. May be feminists are opposing any amendment.

I mentioned that Lord Macaulay wanted the clause saving woman, though it was not there in the English Law. It was because he was derisive about Hinduism. He had also made statements as to why he was introducing the clause. Almost a century later our Supreme court seems to confirm Lord Macaulay's views.

Mr.Zeeshan Ali 

You were saying that TV was a small thing which the bride's father could afford. What did that mean? Now you are saying that it could be false allegation. So both my points are proven.

The brides party would not make false allegation just before the marriage. There could be no motive at that stage. Things start to sour only much after the new wife enters her matrimonial home

I think Zeeshan meant that even the quality of allegations show how fake those would be. E.g. if a crorepati's daughter (and another crorepatis daughter-in-law) claims "bycycle" was demanded, any sane person can conclude that no crorepati would demand bicycle, he would instead go and buy it ! These days false cases are so exaggerated that at times women tell the PI after few years of cases "mein aaj bhi islo itna pyaar karti hun" .. comeon, if he did such grave acts as alleged by her, how can she LOVE HIM ?, Can she ?

I remember a high profile case where it was alleged that he asked for few lakhs of dowry. For a family like his, even his IT returns of that year were way higher than the alleged amount demanded by him !

Now if she says, "a crorepati can ask for a bicycle", we all understand that it would be a lie, its a matter of logic but not everyone has it !