IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 10342 of 1998(Y) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- GEORGE SEBASTIAN, ELENJIMATTAM HOUSE, ARUVITHURA.P.O., ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.ISSAC M.PERUMPILLIL. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. LISSY JOSEPH, NEENDOOR HOUSE, THIDANADU.P.O., PATHAZHA, KOTTAYAM - 683 123. 2. THE DOWRY PROHIBITION OFFICER (R.D.O), PALAI. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 17708/1998 IN O.P. NO. 10342/1998-F DISMISSED 06/02/2008. SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 20/11/1996. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 26/02/98 ISSUED BY R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 02/04/98 OF THE R.2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------------------------------------------- O.P.NO.10342 OF 1998-F -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT The marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was solemnized on 19.8.1991. The marriage did not last long and they separated in April, 1992. They blame each other for the discord between them. Four years after the separation, the 1st respondent filed Ext.P1 complaint dated 20.11.1996 before the Kerala Womens' Commission wherein she had requested the Womens' Commission to help her to get back the sum of Rs.35,000/= said to have been paid towards her share, a steel almirah, dresses and other movables belonging to her, which she alleged were in the custody of the petitioner. The Womens' Commission forwarded the complaint to the 2nd respondent, the Dowry Prohibition Officer appointed under Section 8B of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. On receipt of the complaint evidenced by Ext.P1, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P2 notice to the petitioner, his father and his sister-in-law asking them to appear in person before him on OP.10342/1998 . 2 11.3.1998. The petitioner states that as directed in Ext.P2, he along with his father and sister-in-law appeared before the 2nd respondent and requested for a copy of the complaint said to have been filed by the petitioner, an opportunity to file objections to the said complaint and also permission to engage a counsel. The petitioner states that without granting any of the said requests, he, his father and his sister-in-law were questioned and the enquiry was later adjourned to 25.3.1998 and the statement of the 1st respondent was recorded. Thereafter Ext.P3 order dated 2.4.1998 was passed whereby the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to pay to the 1st respondent the sum of Rs.18,000/= and also to return to her the steel almirah, dresses, umbrella and one and a half soverings of gold ornaments in the presence of the Village Officer, Erattupetta, through Sri. T. Babu, the 1st respondent's authorised agent. 3. The petitioner has in this original petition challenged Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent has in passing Ext.P3 order failed to comply with the principles of natural justice by not furnishing him with a copy of the complaint, by not giving him an opportunity to file objections to the complaint OP.10342/1998 . 3 after perusing it and by denying his right to assistance by a lawyer of his choice. The learned counsel submitted that it was only after Ext.P3 order was passed, that the petitioner could obtain a copy of the complaint filed by the 1st respondent before the Kerala Womens' Commission. Relying on Rule 6(6) of the Kerala Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1992 the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Dowry Prohibition Officer has issued Ext.P3 in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. 4. Sri.Viju Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contended that Ext.P3 is beyond challenge. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that it was after issuing a notice as contemplated under Rule 5(5) of the Kerala Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1962 and after hearing the petitioner and others that the 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P3. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent also submitted that the findings in Ext.P3 are based on the materials collected in the enquiry conducted by the 2nd respondent and that on the facts established in the enquiry, the findings in Ext.P3 cannot be said to be perverse. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. Rule 6 (6) of the Kerala Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1992 states that the Dowry OP.10342/1998 . 4 Prohibition Officer while conducting an enquiry into the complaints received shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and be subject to the other provisions of the Act and the Rules. The 2nd respondent has not filed a counter affidavit disputing the averment made by the petitioner that a copy of the complaint evidenced by Ext.P1 was not furnished to him along with Ext.P2 or during the enquiry. Though the 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit, she has also not traversed the allegation that a copy of Ext.P1 complaint was not furnished to the petitioner. The 1st respondent has only stated in the counter affidavit that the contents of the complaint were read out to the petitioner and that the petitioner denied the allegations. From Ext.P1 it can be seen that it was filed before the Kerala Womens' Commission. Later it was forwarded by the Kerala Womens Commission to the 2nd respondent. Ext.P1 is a complaint dated 20.11.1996. Ext.P2 notice of hearing issued by the 2nd respondent does not even refer to the date of the complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein. It is clear from Ext.P2 that a copy of the complaint was also not annexed. Rule 5(5) of the Kerala Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1962 stipulates that the Dowry Prohibition Officer shall on receipt of a complaint, intimate or serve notice to the parties or witnesses about the date and time of hearing in Form III annexed to the Rules. Though Rule OP.10342/1998 . 5 5(5) does not stipulate that a copy of the complaint should be furnished to the party against whom the complaint is made, the 2nd respondent was bound to furnish a copy to the petitioner to comply with the principles of natural justice. Failure to furnish a copy of the complaint to the person against whom it is made amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner, against whom serious allegations were levelled in Ext.P1, was entitled to get copy of Ext.P1 and an opportunity to file his objections thereto. It is seen from Ext.P1 itself that since April 1992 the parties are residing separately. 6. In the light of the fact that complaint was made more than four years after the parties separated and in view of the fact that there are serious allegations therein against the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner was entitled to be furnished with a copy of the complaint and an opportunity to file his objections thereto. No provision of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 or the Rules was brought to my notice to lend support to the contention raised by the 1st respondent that it is enough if the contents of the complaint are read out to the petitioner. It is evident from the scheme of the Kerala Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1992 that an enquiry by the Dowry Prohibition Officer contemplates even OP.10342/1998 . 6 examination of witnesses. If the petitioner is asked to meet an allegation without furnishing him with a copy of the complaint, it is certainly in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. For the reasons stated above, I quash Ext.P3 and direct the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter after affording the petitioner herein and the 1st respondent herein an opportunity to establish their rival contentions. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be permitted to file a written objection to Ext.P1 complaint. The 2nd respondent shall issue notice to both parties and dispose of Ext.P1 complaint afresh. The petitioner and the 1st respondent shall also be permitted to examine witnesses if they propose to do so. The 2nd respondent shall endeavor to dispose of the complaint as early as possible and at any rate within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is allowed as above. No costs. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl OP.10342/1998 . 7 P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. O.P.NO.10342 OF 1998-F JUDGMENT 6th February, 2008. OP.10342/1998 . 8 P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. O.P.NO.10342 OF 1998-F JUDGMENT OP.10342/1998 . 9 6th February, 2008.