TMI Blog1978 (9) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... according to the items mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the complaint were of the value of rupees over one lac) on the pretext that the times were not safe for wearing valuable ornaments. 2. The complaint goes on to state that in June, 1977, Iqbal Jang Singh, husband of the respondent, left for USA on the pretext of a business trip. Before leaving the country, he told the respondent that the ornaments etc. should remain in the safe custody of his parents, i.e., the petitioners. The respondent had no ground to doubt his statement and she acted upon the same, though later on it came to light that it was a plan on the part of her husband with the connivance of his parents to desert the respondent. After the departure of her husband for USA the attitude of the petitioners towards her underwent a complete change and they started taunting her. On Basant Panchmi day, i.e. Feb. 12, 1978, the respondent asked for a set of ornaments for wearing them to celebrate the Basant but the petitioners refused to give any ornaments to her and bluntly told her that she will not be allowed to have those ornaments and articles of dowry for use. She was further taunted and told to bring a lac o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they declined to accept any gifts or dowry at the time of the marriage of their only son. The petition states that soon after the marriage it was discovered that the respondent could have no interest in her husband because of her antecedents. It is stated that her elder sister was married to Sardar Jasbir Singh son of Ajit Singh of village Burj, District Amritsar. The said Sardar Ajit Singh was involved in a triple murder case along with some others. That case arose out of the allegations that the three deceased persons had been abducted from the Crystal Chowk, Amritsar, tortured and murdered in collusion with members of the Border Security Force but the case ended up acquittal by the Supreme Court of India. It is claimed that the respondent eluded her husband for six hours on May 7, 1977, Mid was not found anywhere where she should have been. She had no explanation for this lapse on her part. Further locker No. 26 had been taken on rent in the Andhra Bank in the joint name of Iqbal Jang Singh and the respondent which could be operated jointly or severally and on April 28, 1977, the respondent alone operated the locker. After she had left the house of the petitioners on May 7, 197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the truth of the allegations is admitted. 6. When the case came up before me at the motion stage, Mr. Thapar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, brought to my notice a single Bench decision of this Court in Surinder Mohan v. Smt. Kiran Saini 1977 (Cri)LJ 212 In that case a similar complaint filed by a wife against her husband was dismissed on the ground that a complaint under Section 4 of the Dowry Act was not cognisable after a period of one year as laid down under Section 7 of the said Act end the offence under Section 406 was not made out because the complaint did not disclose the conditions under which the articles constituting the dowry were given by the parents of the girl at the time of the marriage of the spouses in that case. I was prima facie of the view that some of the observations in that case were likely to work hardship against illiterate and helpless wives in this country. Consequently, I admitted the revision petition to be heard and decided by a Division Bench, This is how the present case has come up for arguments before us. 7. Mr. Thapar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently argued that because of the subsequent codification o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this point raised was that under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act a female had become the full owner of her property which implied that the concept of stridhan had become wholly obsolete. We have carefully considered these ingenuous arguments advanced by Mr. Thapar. The two statutes, namely, the Hindu Marriage Act and the Hindu Succession Act have only partially modified the principles of Hindu law, and no provision contained in either of these statutes has either expressly or by implication in any ;way modified the concept of stridhan, N. B. Raghavachariar in his Hindu Law (Principles Precedents) Fifth Edition at page 533 has observed as under: Powers during Coverture Saudayika. meaning the gift of affectionate kindred, includes both Yautaka or gifts received at the time of marriage as well as its negative Ayautaka. In respect of such property, whether given by gifts or will, she is the absolute owner and can deal with it in any way she likes. She may spend, sell or give it away at her own pleasure by gift or will without reference to her husband and property acquired by it is equally subject to such rights. Ordinarily the husband has no manner of right or interest in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property belonging to her is criminally misappropriated by her husband. 10. We may now examine the argument that the articles presented to the respondent at the time of her marriage did not constitute 'dowry' or her stridhan. In this connection, we might observe that the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is a special statute designed to prohibit husbands from extorting huge sums of money in consideration for the marriage. The term 'dowry' has been defined in Section 2 of this Act as under: Definition of 'dowry': In this Act, dowry' means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly (a) by one party to a marriage to the Other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any Other person; at or before or after the marriage as consideration for the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom tie Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. Explanation I: For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any presents made at the time of a marriage to either ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaint cannot be quashed without giving the aggrieved wife an opportunity of proving that the ornaments had been given to her at the time of her marriage for her use only. Any observations to the contrary made in Surinder Mohan v. Smt. Kiran Saini 1977 (Cri) LJ 212 (Punj and Har) (supra) cannot be regarded as good law. 13. Now a reading of the complaint and the annexures attached thereto clearly disclose some items of property which are meant solely for the use of the respondent. In this situation it would not be proper on our part to quash the complaint at this stage. 14. Mr. Thapar then submitted that a reading of the complaint did not make out any offence and that the accusations were so frivolous that the complaint could possibly not result in the conviction of the petitioners. We do not agree with this submission made by the learned Counsel. There is a definite allegation in the complaint that the ornaments given to the respondent at the time of her marriage were entrusted by her to the petitioners, some of which they refused to part with when she made the demand. Whether she will be able to prove this allegation or not is an entirely different matter and at this sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
