Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697637297529.pdf (Australia)
Dear Committee members, We represent families – particularly the ones with Indian ethnicity and from Indian subcontinent.

which is involved in the welfare, wellbeing of the While we accept there is still a prevalence of dowry in residents of Indian ethnicity, we oppose the creation of any dowry law.

Ethnicity specific and gender specific i.e.

We believe and trust that the current Domestic Violence law frame work is satisfactory to the multicultural society of Australia.
We have listed out the reasons for the same and suggestions.

Reasons/Issues Gender Neutrality/ Racist & Ethnicity specific – The proposed dowry law is gender biased law and will give a chance to females to misuse the law as a tool against husband and their families.This law will become a tool for blackmail and extortion by wife on the innocent husband and their families.

Harassment of Husbands and families: Dowry laws have failed in India and have harassed millions of innocent husbands and their families.
The Supreme Court of India has called the notorious 498a as a “legal tool for extortion” (Ref 1) Low conviction rate.

Extremely low <15%, which means 85% of the innocent husbands and their families have suffered years of extreme harassment and mental torture and some of them have lost their lives.

Jurisdiction issues: I think it is impossible, to prove a dowry related issue in multiple jurisdiction.
Tools for vengeance: The gendered biased laws become tools of vengeance as can be done by one gender against other and while the other is defenceless.

Tool for extortion & blackmail: Even though they are falsely accused, there is extreme harassment for years of husband and his family by the wife and his family charge exorbitant amounts from husband to “settle”.

The poor husbands have paid tens of millions of rupees to just get free of this harassment and to save their and their families future.
Suggestions • Committee should be setup to study the negative impacts of notorious IPC (Indian The practice of dowry and the incidence of dowry abuse in AustraliaSubmission 56 Penal Code) Section 498a and dowry laws in India • Assess and see how current legal framework can be used rather than new laws.

• Committee to introduce penal provisions for false complaints.

• Punish the dowry giver apart from dowry taker.

As Dowry Giving should be a punishable law as well.
Conclusion: We would recommend that the committee explore the provisions in the current family law and domestic violence framework to deter and dowry related issues.

Any new dowry specific law targeted at Indian families is neither required or is sought.
We suggest a sub-committee study the negative impacts of notorious dowry law in India IPC Section 498a on the families and harassment of innocent husbands and families in India, to see for themselves how a dowry specific law can create havoc in lives of innocent people and instead of providing justice leads to blatant violation of basic human rights of falsely accused.
References Ref 1: SC Judgement: “Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India” https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1172674/ “The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace.

But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have filed with obligue motive.

In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignomy 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.

As noted the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace.

But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed.

The provision is intended to be used a shield and not assassins' weapon.

If cry of "wolf" is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual "wolf" appears.
There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations.

They cannot follow any strait jacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty.

It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent.

There is no scope for any pre- conceived notion or view.
It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumption that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth.

This is too wide available and generalized statement.

Certain statutory presumption are drawn which again are reputable.
It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a The practice of dowry and the incidence of dowry abuse in AustraliaSubmission 56 bloodhound.
It should be their effort to see that in innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations ” Ref 2: SC Judgement: “Rajesh Sharma vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182220573/ Section 8, 9 and 10 of the SC judgement talk of the highlight of the dowry law 498a by the various apex and senior courts of the country.

8.
8.

Referring to Sushil Kumar Sharma versus Union of India1, Preeti Gupta versus State of Jharkhand 2, Ramgopal versus State of Madhya Pradesh3, Savitri Devi versus Ramesh Chand4, it was submitted that misuse of the provision is judicially acknowledged and there is need to adopt measures to prevent such misuse.

The Madras High Court in M.P.

No.1 of 2008 in Cr.

O.P.


No.1089 of 2008 dated 4th August, 2008 directed issuance of following guidelines: “It must also be borne in mind that the object behind the enactment of Section 498-A IPCand the Dowry Prohibition 1 (2005) 6 SCC 281 2 (2010) 7 SCC 667 3 (2010) 13 SCC 5404 ILR (2003) I Delhi 484 Act is to check and curb the menace of dowry and at the same time, to save the matrimonial homes from destruction.
Our experience shows that, apart from the husband, all family members are implicated and dragged to the police stations.Though arrest of those persons is not at all necessary, in a number of cases, such harassment is made simply to satisfy the ego and anger of the complainant.
By suitably dealing with such matters, the injury to innocents could be avoided to a considerable extent by the Magistrates, but, if the Magistrates themselves accede to the bare requests of the police without examining the actual state of affairs, it would create negative effects thereby, the very purpose of the legislation would be defeated and the doors of conciliation would be closed forever.
The husband and his family members may have difference of opinion in the dispute, for which, arrest and judicial remand are not the answers.

The ultimate object ofevery legal system is to punish the guilty and protect the innocents.” Ref 3: Very Low conviction rate in dowry law in India.

The practice of dowry and the incidence of dowry abuse in AustraliaSubmission 56