Source: http://peractolegal.com/the-dowry-prohibition-act-1961/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:26:34+00:00

Document:
(3) It shall come into force on such date 1as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.
1. Came into force on 1-7-1961 vide S.O. 1410, dated 20-6-1961.
In this Act, “dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly.
at or before 1[or any time after the marriage] 2[in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include] dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation II.—The expression “valuable security” has the same meaning as in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(i) The word ‘dowry’ should be any property or valuable given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage. The customary payments in connection with birth of child or other ceremonies are not involved within ambit of dowry; Satbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 SC 2828.
(ii) “Dowry” in the sense of the expression contemplated by Dowry Prohibition Act is a demand for property of valuable security having an inextricable nexus with the marriage, i.e., it is a consideration from the side of the bride’s parents or relatives to the groom or his parents and/or guardian for the agreement to wed the bride-to-be. But where the demand for property or valuable security has no connection with the consideration for the marriage, it will not amount to a demand for dowry; Arjun Dhondiba Kamble v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 AIHC 273.
(iii) Any property given by parents of the bride need not be in consideration of the marriage, it can even be in connection with the marriage and would constitute dowry; Rajeev v. Ram Kishan Jaiswal, 1994 Cri LJ NOC 255 (All).
(iv) The definition of dowry is wide enough to include all sorts of properties, valuable securities, etc., given or agreed to be given directly or indirectly; Vemuri Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1992 Cri LJ 563 AP HC.
(v) There had been no agreement between either parties to give any property or valuable security to the other party at or before or after the marriage. The demand of T.V., refrigerator, gas connection, cash of Rs. 50,000 and 15 tolas of gold are not demand of dowry but demand of valuable security in view of section 2; Shankar Prasad Shaw v. State, I (1992) DMC 30 Cal.
(vi) While dowry signifies presents given in connection with marriage to the bridal couple as well as others, Stridhan is confined to property given to or meant for the bride; Hakam Singh v. State of Punjab, (1990) 1 DMC 343.
(vii) Dowry, means, any property given or agreed to be given by the parents of a party to the marriage at the time of the marriage or before marriage or at any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage. So, where the husband had demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000 some days after the marriage from his father-in-law and on not being given became angry, tortured the wife and threatened to go for another marriage, it was held that the amount was being demanded in connection with the marriage and it was a demand for dowry though it was demanded after the marriage; Y.K. Bansal v. Anju, All LJ 914.
(viii) The furnishing of a list of ornaments and other household articles such as refrigerator, furniture, electrical appliances, etc., at the time of the settlement of the marriage amounts to demand of dowry within the meaning of section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Madhu Sudan Malhotra v. K.C. Bhandari, 1988 BLJR 360 (SC).
(ix) A sum of money paid by a Mohemmadan in connection with his daughter’s marriage to prospective bridegroom for the purchase of a piece of land in the joint name of his daughter and would-be son-in-law is not ‘dowry’ within the meaning of the Act; Kunju Moideen v. Syed Mohamed, AIR 1986 Ker 48.
(x) Where the demand was made after the marriage for the purchase of a car, it was held that it did not fall within the definition; Nirdosh Kumar v. Padma Rani, 1984 (2) Rec Cr R 239.
(xi) Where the demand was made at the time when marriage ceremony was in progress and was repeated after the marriage, it was held that it fell within the definition of dowry; L.V. Jadhav v. Shankar Rao, (1983) 2 Crimes 470.
(xii) Definition of ’dowry’ is not restricted to agreement or demand for payment of dowry before and at the marriage but also includes demands made subsequent to marriage; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raj Gopal Asawa, AIR 2004 SCW 1566.
(xiii) Demand of dowry in respect of invalid marriage would not be legally recognisable; Reena Aggarwal v. Anupam, AIR 2004 SC 1418.
1. Subs. by Act 43 of 1986, sec. 2, for “or after the marriage” (w.e.f. 19-11-1986).
2. Subs. by Act 63 of 1984, sec. 2, for certain words (w.e.f. 2-10-1985).
3. Explanation I omitted by Act 63 of 1984, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 2-10-1985).
(b) Presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf).
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act.
Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given .
(i) Section 3 does not contravene articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution and therefore this section is not ultra vires of the said articles; Indrawati v. Union of India, I (1991) DMC 117 (All).
(ii) The offence is founded in the relationship of the property demanded as abettor with the nature of demand. It should not bear a mere connection with marriage; Madan Lal v. Amar Nath, (1984) 2 Rec Cr. 581.
(iii) Abetment is a preparatory act and connotes active complicity on the part of the abettor at a point of time prior to the actual commission of the offence; Muthummal v.Maruthal, 1981 Cr. LJ 833 (Mad).
1. Section 3 re-numbered as sub-section (1) thereof by Act 63 of 1984, sec. 3 (w.e.f. 2-10-1985).
2. Subs. by Act 63 of 1984, sec. 3, for certain words (w.e.f. 2-10-1985).
3. Subs. by Act 43 of 1986, sec. 3, for certain words (w.e.f. 19-11-1986).
4. Subs. by Act 43 of 1986, sec. 3, for “six months” (w.e.f. 19-11-1986).
5. Ins. by Act 63 of 1984, sec. 3 (w.e.f. 2-10-1985).
1 Penalty for demanding dowry.- If any person demands, directly orindirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.
(i) The mere demand of dowry before marriage is an offence; Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 Cr LJ 2792 (SC).
(ii) The offence of demanding dowry stood committed even before the marriage was performed and also when the demand was repeated again and again after the performance of marriage in respect of the same items of dowry; Harbans Singh v. Smt. Gurcharan Kaur alias Sharan Kaur, 1993 Rec Cr R 404 (Del).
(iii) The deceased had before being set on fire by her in-laws written a letter to her father that she was being ill-treated, harassed and threatened of dire consequences for non-satisfaction of demand of dowry. Thereby proving that an offence of demanding dowry under section 4 had been committed; Bhoora Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1993 Cri LJ 2636 All.
(iv) There had been no agreement between either parties to the marriage nor their relations to give any property or valuable security to the other party at or before or after the marriage. Held that the demand of TV, refrigerator, gas connection, cash of Rs. 50,000 and 15 tolas of gold will not amount to demand of dowry but demand of valuable security and the said offence does not attract section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; Shankar Prasad Shaw v. State, I (1992) DMC 30 Cal.
(v) Furnishing of a list of ornaments and other household articles at the time of settlement of marriage amounts to demand of dowry and accused are liable to be convicted under section 4; Raksha Devi v. Aruna Devi, I (1991) DMC 46 (P&H).
(vi) Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is not ultra vires nor does it contravene articles 14, 19, 21, 22 of the Constitution; Indrawati v. Union of India, 1 (1991) DMC 117 All.
1. Subs. by Act 63 of 1984, sec. 4, for section 4 (w.e.f. 2-10-1985).
(a) Offers through any advertisement in any newspaper, periodical, journal or through any other media, any share in his property or of any money or both as a share in any business or other interest as consideration fore the marriage of his son or daughter or any other relatives.
he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years, or with fine which may extend to fifteen thousand rupees.
1. Ins. by Act 43 of 1986, sec. 4 (w.e.f. 19-11-1986).
Any agreement for the giving or taking of dowry shall be void.
2[(3A) Where a person convicted under sub-section (2) for failure to transfer any property as required by sub-section (1) 3[or sub-section (3)] has not, before his conviction under that sub-section, transferred such property to the woman entitled thereto or, as the case may be, 6[her heirs, parents or children] the Court shall, in addition to awarding punishment under that sub-section, direct, by order in writing, that such person shall transfer the property to such woman or, as the case may be, 6[her heirs, parents or children] within such period as may be specified in the order, and if such person fails to comply with the direction within the period so specified, an amount equal to the value of the property may be recovered from him as if it were a fine imposed by such Court and paid to such woman or, as the case may be,6[her heirs, parents or children].
(4) Nothing contained in this section shall affect the provisions of section 3 or section 4.
1. Subs. by Act 63 of 1984, sec. 5, for “one year” (w.e.f. 2-10-1985).
2. Subs. by Act 63 of 1984, sec. 5, for sub-section (2) (w.e.f. 2-10-1985).
3.Ins. by Act 43 of 1986, sec. 5 (w.e.f. 19-11-1986).
4. Subs. by Act 43 of 1986, sec. 5, for certain words (w.e.f. 19-11-1986).
5. Ins. by Act 63 of 1984, sec. 5 (w.e.f. 2-10-1985).
6. Subs. by Act 63 of 1986, sec. 5, for “her heirs” (w.e.f. 19-11-1986).
(a) No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act.
(ii) A complaint by the person aggrieved by the offence or a parent or other relative of such person, or by nay recognized welfare institution or organisation.
Explanation – For the purpose of this sub section, “recognized welfare institution or organisation” means a social welfare institution or organisation recognized in this behalf by the Central or State Government.
(2) Nothing in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply to any offence punishable under this Act.
(i) The point of time at which the legality of cognizance is to be judged is the time when cognizance is actually taken; M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur, AIR 1967 SC 528.
(ii) The expression ‘to take cognizance’ has not been defined in this Act nor in the Criminal Procedure Code The word ‘Cognizance’ is however, used in the Code to indicate the point when the Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence. It is a word of indefinite import and is perhaps not always used in exactly the same sense; Darshan Singh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 2372.
(iii) Taking cognizance is a judicial action taken with a view eventually to prosecution and preliminary to the commencement of the inquiry or trail; Food Inspector v. Laxmi Narayan, 1969 Cut LT 863.
(iv) If a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try an offence, he is not barred from taking cognizance of the offence; Jaddu v. State, AIR 1952 All 873.
1. Subs. by Act 63 of 1984, sec. 6, for section 7 (w.e.f. 2-10-1985).
2. Ins. by Act 43 of 1986, sec. 6 (w.e.f. 19-11-1986).
1. Subs. by Act 63 of 1984, sec. 7, for section 8 (w.e.f. 2-10-1985).
2. Subs. by Act 43 of 1986, sec. 7, for “bailable” (w.e.f. 19-11-1986).
3. Subs. by Act 43 of 1986, sec. 7, for “bailable” (w.e.f. 19-11-1986).
(i) Where no specific suggestions given to any of the prosecutions witnesses regarding plea of alibi, the plea is not maintainable; Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 Cr LJ 2792.
(ii) If death of wife is within 4 years of marriage in abnormal circumstances and demand of dowry and cruelty is established, the onus to rebut the presumption of dowry death shifts to defence vide Cr. Appeal No. 431 of 1997, decided on 4-2-2004.
1. Ins. by Act 43 of 1986, sec. 8 (w.e.f. 19-11-1986).
(1) The State Government may appoint as many Dowry Prohibition Officers as it thinks fit and specify the areas in respect of which they shall exercise their jurisdiction and powers under this Act.
(d) To perform such additional functions as may be assigned to him by the State Government, or as may be specified in the rule made under this Act.
(4) The State Government may, for the purpose of advising and assisting Dowry Prohibition Officers in the efficient performance of their functions under this Act, appoint an Advisory Board consisting of not more than five social welfare workers (out of whom at least two shall be women) form the area in respect of which such Dowry Prohibition Officer exercise jurisdiction under sub section (1).
(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purpose of this Act.
2[(3)] Every rule made under this section shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before each House of Parliament while it is in session for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or 3[in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid], both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so however that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.
The Supreme Court directed to States and Union Territories for awareness regarding provision of the Act and Rules in the public; In Re: E & I of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 1538.
1. Ins. by Act 63 of 1984, sec. 8 (w.e.f. 2-10-1985).
2. Sub-section (2) renumbered as sub-section (3) thereof by Act 63 of 1984, sec. 8 (w.e.f. 2-10-1985).
3. Subs. by Act 20 of 1983, sec. 2 and Sch., for certain words (w.e.f. 15-3-1984).
(a) The additional functions to be performed by the Dowry Prohibition Officers under sub section (2) of Section 8B.
(b) Limitations and conditions subject to which a Dowry Prohibition Officer may exercise his functions under sub section (3) of section 8B.
(3) Every rule made by the State Government under this section shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before the State Legislature.
1. Subs. by Act 43 of 1986, sec. 9, for section 10 (w.e.f. 19-11-1986).
304B. Dowry Death – (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death” and such husband or relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation – For the purposes of this sub section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
(i) After the marriage demand for valuable presents by the husband from the wife’s parents and the suicide of the wife by the constant harassment does not amount to dowry death; Arjun Dhondiba Kamble v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 AIHC 273.
(ii) Section 304-B is creating a substantive offence and is not merely a provision effecting a change in the procedure for the trail of a pre-existing substantive offence. Section 304-B is prospective in nature, death taking place before section 304-B came into force; Bhoora Singh v. State, 1993 Cri. LJ 2636 All.
(c) That the death is under unnatural circumstances. Since there was demand for dowry and harassment and death within 7 years of marriage, the other things automatically follow and offence under section 304-B is proved; Vemuri Venkateshwara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1992 Cri. LJ. 563 A.P. See also Shanti v. State of Haryana, 1 (1991) DMC 187 SC.
(iv) Though the death of the deceased within 7 years of marriage tool place by burns, section 304-B was held not attracted as there was nothing to show that the deceased before her death was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry by her husband or relative; Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, II (1992) DMC 486 M.P.
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever, being the husband or the relatives of the husband of a woman, subject such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
In the absence of any specific allegations of cruelty against the petitioners there is no offence under section 498-A. the complainant had also started living with the petitioner thereby condoning the acts of cruelty; Sukhbir Jain v. State, 1994 (1) CC cases 609 (HC) Del.
(ii) The husband and in-laws subjected the wife the cruelty for bringing insufficient dowry and finally burnt her down, thereby inviting a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- for an offence committed under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code; Bhoora Singh v. State, 1993 Cri. LJ 2636 All.
(iii) Section 498-a contemplates the offence of subjecting a woman to cruelty by the husband or relatives of the husband. As the applicants are not relatives of the husband rather they are co-villagers consequently summoning them for offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code amounts to abuse of process of court; Dukhi Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1993 Cri. LJ 2539 (All).
(iv) Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code is not ultra vires of articles 14, 19, 21, 22 of constitution and do not contravene these provisions; Indrawati v. Union of India, I (1991) DMC 117 (DB) (All).
(v) The newly wed daughter-in-law was abused by her mother-in-law of ill-luck when the daughter-in-law had an abortion, the husband assaulted her on various occasions that bridal presents brought by her were of inferior quality, thereby treating her with cruelty as defined in section 498-A of Indian Penal Code driving her to commit suicide; State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, 1994 Cri. LJ 2104 SC.
113B. Presumption as to dowry death- When the question is whether a person has committed by dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation – For the purpose of this section “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in section, 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
1. Short title and commencement – (1) These rules may be called the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985.
(2) They shall come into force on the 2nd day of October, 1985 being the date appointed for the coming into force of the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (63 of 1984).
2. Rules in accordance with which lists of presents are to be maintained – (1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bride shall be maintained by the bride.
(2) The list of presents which are given at the time of marriage to the bridegroom shall be maintained by the bridegroom.
Explanation 1- Where the bride is unable to sign, she may affix her thumb impression in lieu of her signature after having the list read out to her and obtaining the signature, on the list, of the person who has so read out the particulars contained in the list.
Explanation 2- Where the bridegroom is unable to sign, he may affix his thumb impression in lieu of his signature after having the list read out to him and obtaining the signature, on the list of the person who has so read out the particulars contained in the list.
(4) The bride or the bridegroom may, if she or he so desires obtain on either or both of the lists referred to in sub-rule (1) or sub rule 92) the signature or signatures of any other person or persons present at the time of the marriage.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.