Case Law Details
Vishnu R. Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court)
On going through the above rules, it is clear that on receiving a complaint, the District Dowry Prohibition Officer is bound to scrutinize the complaint and find whether it would come within the purview of Sections 2, 3, 6 etc. of the Act and conduct an enquiry to collect evidence from the parties about the genuineness of the complaint and upon such enquiry if it is found that dowry is received by a person other than the women, then only powers under the Act can be exercised by the District Dowry Prohibition Officer. If the complaint is received with respect to the non transfer of such dowry to the woman, who is entitled to it as per Section 6 of the Act, the District Dowry Prohibition Officer can issue directions to the parties to transfer the same. Here, from the records produced from the side of the petitioner as well as from the impugned order what could be gathered is that a statement of the petitioner has been obtained. The impugned order would further go to show that the 4th respondent stated at the time of hearing that 55 sovereigns of gold ornaments was given at the time of marriage and a chain was given to the petitioner by the parents of the 4th respondent and that has been agreed by both parties. It is further stated that out of which 5 chains and 9 bangles have been kept in the Thodiyoor Service Co-operative Bank, Edakulangara Branch in the joint locker. Thereafter, direction was given to return the 5 chains, 9 bangles and also the chain given to the petitioner at the time of marriage. So, no enquiry is conducted as to whether those articles are dowry given to the 4th respondent and no finding that the articles ordered to be released are dowry given to the 4th respondent at the time of marriage is entered into in the impugned order. What is revealed from the impugned order is only that 4th respondent stated that 55 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given at the time of marriage to her and one gold chain was given to the petitioner at the time of marriage and petitioner admitted that during hearing. Order does not reveal that 4th respondent stated that gold was given as dowry by her parents as agreed or there was any such demand from the side of the petitioner for dowry. The 4th respondent will get jurisdiction to pass direction under Rule 6(xv) of the Rules only if it is found that the ornaments directed to be returned to the 4th respondent are dowry received by the petitioner. In the absence of such finding, the Dowry Prohibition Officer will not get any jurisdiction to give direction under Rule 6(xv). Hence the impugned order passed is not sustainable in law and is hereby quashed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is the husband of the 4th respondent. The impugned order has been passed by the 3rd respondent/ dowery prohibition officer.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner married the 4th respondent on 06.9.2020 at Mangalathukavu Devi Temple, Ashtamudi, Kollam, as per the customs and practices prevailing among Hindu community. After the marriage they are living together as husband and wife at the residence of the petitioner. Their relationship was strained and 4th respondent initiated legal proceedings against the petitioner and ultimately she filed a petition before the nodal officer (Dowry cases), which is produced as Exhibit P1.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
