Dowry allegation after 7 years of marriage valid?

Msk-need -nuetral- laws (self) 11 February 2013

Sonia,

Please spend adeqaute time in reading, dont rely all the time help from here though you are welcome. read below

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Can-dowry-case-be-filed-after-7-years-of-marriage--45398.asp#.URj3lx04tGM

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker) 11 February 2013

Please advise if (false) dowry allegations from a woman after 7 years of married life are valid in court?

mere allegations are sufficient to initiate legal procedure.

but the complainant has to prove her case BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, being a criminal case.

everything depends upon the contents of her complaint.

there is NO rule that dowry case can NOT be filed after xyz yrs. of marriage (as dowry demand can initiate any time - before / during / after marriage)

(Guest)

@Querist,

Let me Intervene in this matter.

The Question is not about whether a wife can file dowry case after 7 years or not,because it's been clear now that she can file such complaint/FIR during her lifetime. But then what is the significance of 7Yrs!?

Well, the actual difference lies in the burden of proof.

If such complaint/FIR lodged withing 7 yrs, the presumption is taken favoring the wife against husband and in-laws where the burden of proof shifts to them,but after this period lapses, the complainant has to prove such allegation against the accused.

Hope that clarify your doubt.

Note-This reply should be taken as per the declaration given in my profile page.

Thanks,

Regards,

1 Like

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker) 11 February 2013

If such complaint/FIR lodged withing 7 yrs, the presumption is taken favoring the wife against husband and in-laws where the burden of proof shifts to them,but after this period lapses, the complainant has to prove such allegation against the accused.

the burdon of proving the allegations ALWAYS lies on the complainant !

(Guest)

@Over smart Advisor,

Before you shout as a knowlegable person,you must assure yourself that you deserve that position.

For your information

Read Section 113A of The Indian Evidence Act 1872.Akso take advice of your seniors at least.

Advice- Talk is good but should be meaningful and not argumantative which is baseless.

Thanks,

Regards,

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker) 12 February 2013

ye to alag hee zagda shuru ho raha hai yar !

Msk-need -nuetral- laws (self) 12 February 2013

Amit,

is n't that whether it is filed within 7 years or any number of years later, the burden of proof lies with state/complainant than accused in criminal cases. Is n't that accused need to defend against the evidences in counter in cross?

I am learning so would love to hear..

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker) 12 February 2013

burden of proof lies with state/complainant than accused in criminal cases.

right

Is n't that accused need to defend against the evidences in counter in cross?

right

I am learning so would love to hear..

1 Like

ashoksrivastava (scientist) 12 February 2013

Dear amit the GENTLEMAN was referring to explanation given in IPC498A and section113a of evidence act. I am pasting from explanation given in IPC 498A which explains the difference in treatment given to marriages less than 7yrs old vis a vis the olderones

"Section 498A vis-a-vis section 113 of Evidence Act

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act has not introduced invidious classification qua the treatment of a married woman by her husband or relatives of her husband vis-a-vis the other offenders. On the other hand, such women form a class apart whom from those who are married more than seven years earlier to the commission of such offence, because, with the passage of time after marriage and birth of children, there are remote chances of treating a married woman with cruelty by her husband or his relatives. Thus, the classification is reasonable and has close nexus with the object sought to be achieved, i.e., eradication of the evil of dowry in the Indian social set-up and to ensure that the married women live with dignity at their matrimonial homes; Krishan Lal v. Union of India," 1994 Cr LJ 3472."

Now pasting from section113A of indian evidence act

"

113A. Presumption as to abatement of suicide by a married women -

¹113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.- When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a women had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband has subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.

Explanation

For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

REGARDS

ashok