The Allahabad High Court dominated that maintaining an inventory of items obtained by the bride or bridegroom on the time of marriage, as required by Section 3(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, is crucial to stopping false allegations of dowry in subsequent disputes. “Maintaining the list is also important so that both parties to the marriage and their family members do not later make false allegations about taking or giving dowry in a marriage. The arrangement made by the Dowry Prohibition Act may also help in subsequent litigation between the parties to determine whether the allegations regarding the taking or giving of dowry are covered by the exception carved out under section 3(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,” Justice Vikram D. Chauhan stated.
Section 3 of the Act imposes penalties for giving or receiving dowry, together with imprisonment for not lower than 5 years and a superb of not lower than Rs 50,000 or the worth of the dowry, whichever is increased. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 states that presents given to the bride or bridegroom on the time of marriage and never demanded will not be thought of ‘dowry’, offered {that a} listing of such items obtained by both particular person is saved in accordance with the foundations.
Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 specifies how the listing of items beneath Section 3(2) is to be maintained.
“The Central authorities framed the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 on this regard, as items and presents function a token of celebration and honour within the Indian marriage system. The legislature was conscious of the Indian custom, and thus the aforementioned exception was carved out. The aforementioned listing would additionally function a way of resolving dowry allegations which are later raised in matrimonial disputes, in keeping with the courtroom.
The courtroom noticed that Section 8B requires the appointment of a Dowry Prohibition Officer for the aim of implementing the Act and, consequently, requested a response from the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary as to what number of Dowry Prohibition Officers have been appointed within the state and, if not, why they haven’t been appointed at a time when dowry circumstances are rising. The subsequent listening to within the case will likely be held on May 23.
