In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India clarified that giving dowry and traditional presents at the time of a wedding does not necessarily attract the provisions of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The ruling came in a case decided by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice J. K. Maheshwari.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a dispute between a father and his former in-laws following the failed marriage of his daughter. The marriage, solemnized in 1999, ended in divorce in the United States in 2016, with a settlement of all matrimonial and financial issues, including the division of possessions as per a Separation Agreement.
In January 2021, more than five years after the divorce and three years after his daughter’s remarriage, the complainant lodged an FIR against his daughter’s former in-laws under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that they failed to return the gold ornaments he had given as ‘stridhan’ at the time of the marriage. The complaint claimed that despite repeated requests, the appellants had not returned these items.
Legal Issues Involved
The Supreme Court’s analysis centered on two primary legal questions:
1. Locus Standi: Whether the complainant, the father of the divorced woman, had the right to file the FIR to recover his daughter’s ‘stridhan’ given that the daughter herself had not authorized him to pursue such recovery.
2. Applicability of Dowry Laws: Whether the giving of gifts and traditional presents at the time of the wedding could constitute an offense under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which deals with the return of dowry items.
Court’s Decision
Justice Sanjay Karol, delivering the judgment, held that the complaint was not maintainable. The court emphasized that ‘stridhan’ belongs solely to the woman, and she has absolute ownership over it. Quoting earlier judgments, including Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, the court reaffirmed that a woman’s right over her ‘stridhan’ is unequivocal and exclusive, and neither her husband nor her father has any right over it without her explicit authorization.
The court found no evidence that the complainant’s daughter had ever entrusted her ‘stridhan’ to her in-laws or that they misappropriated it. Further, the court noted that the allegations were lodged more than two decades after the marriage and several years after the divorce, without any satisfactory explanation for the delay.
Regarding the dowry allegations under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the court observed that giving gifts at the time of the wedding does not inherently imply that they were entrusted to the in-laws in a manner that would trigger legal obligations under this section. It was emphasized that the complainant’s accusations were primarily unsubstantiated and seemed driven by ulterior motives rather than genuine legal grounds.
Important Observations by the Court
The court made critical observations on the misuse of legal processes:
– Misuse of Legal Proceedings: “The object of criminal proceedings is to bring a wrongdoer to justice, and it is not a means to get revenge or seek a vendetta against persons with whom the complainant may have a grudge,” noted the court, quoting Kishan Singh (Dead) through LRs. v. Gurpal Singh & Ors..
– Delay and Laches: The court criticized the complainant for initiating the FIR more than five years after the divorce and three years after his daughter’s remarriage. It reiterated that legal actions must be timely and not driven by malice or revenge.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Telangana High Court, which had refused to quash the proceedings against the appellants. The court quashed the FIR and all related legal actions, concluding that the criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant were an abuse of the legal process.
