|
|
||
|
Home | Hindi | Kabir | Poetry | Workshop | BoloKids | Writers | Contribute | Search | Contact | Share This Page! Shop Online |
|||
|
Women Under Hindu System of Law, marriage was a sacrament, it was a permanent and indissoluble union and was meant for the performance of religious duties by men and women. It is one of the 48 Sanskaras recognized by the Hindu religion. The ancient Hindu Law recognized eight forms of marriage, namely – Brahma, Daiva, Arsha and Prajapatya which were approved forms and the Asuru, Gandharva, Raksha and the Paishacha forms were unapproved. Later only Brahma, Asuru and Gandharva forms were recognized and the other forms were considered obsolete. Brahma form of solemnizing marriage was most popular. In Brahma form it is gift of the bride who is bedecked and bejeweled with ornaments is presented to a man learned in Vedas and of conduct when the father himself invites. It was a gift of bride, the presents and the jeweler were voluntarily given to the bride. In the beginning it was never in the form of coercion or binding. Since, no portion of the parental property was allowed to be shared by female children, therefore, as part of compensation, gifts and presents were given to the daughters at the time of their marriage. These gifts overtime came to be institutionalized as Dowry. Unfortunately, the custom in the contemporary context has gone far beyond a cultural practice or innocuous extravagance, and has added to itself ominous dimensions. It assumed serious proportions only when the people who could not afford it were coerced to give it. Many social reformers like Raja Ram Mohun Rai, Ranade,j, Ishwar Chander Vidya Sagar and Mahatama Gandhi dedicated their lives for eradication of various social evils including the evil of dowry. The result of
the social reformers bore fruits to some extent when first of all Sind
Deti-Leti Act was passed in the year 1939. This Act prohibited payments in
excess of limits specified in the list applicable to the girl’s family,
which were made either by the respective Panchayats or in case of their
failure by the Provincial Governments. When these lists were registered
and published these were binding upon every member of the respective
Panchayats and violation of which was made punishable. After the
independence there were two States, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh who passed
Dowry Prohibition Act in their respective States and ultimately the
present Act was passed in 1961 and was made applicable throughout the
length and breath of the country. Efficacy of Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 Legal Provisions on the Offence of Dowry and Dowry Related Deaths In order to
establish the implicit connection between the dowry system and the dowry
deaths it is essential to look at the different provisions of the Act
along with the provisions of other enactments. While section 2 of the Act
defines the term “Dowry” as any property or valuable security given in
connection with a marriage, section 3 thereof makes giving or talking the
dowry as a punishable offence. Section 4 provides penalty for demanding
dowry and section 4-A bans advertisements on matrimonial based on the
ground of dowry. Section 5 makes void an agreement for giving and taking
the dowry, section 6 contemplates a legal obligation on the person who
actually receives the dowry to transfer the same to the women in whose
marriage it is given or to her children, heirs or parents as the case may
be, in the event of her death. Section 7 and 8 provide provision as to the
cognizance of offence. Section 8-A provides provision as to the burden of
proof in certain cases and section 8-B provides for the appointment and
powers and functions of the Dowry prohibition Officers. Section 9 and 10
empower respectively the central as well as the state Governments to make
rules.
A glimpse of the foregoing analysis of Section 2 makes it clear that in the process of giving or taking dowry, there are three parties involved, namely
The term
“Property” appearing in the main part of section 2 includes movable and
immovable property. The phrase “ By one party to a marriage to the other
party to the marriage “ appearing in clause (a) of section 2 includes
within the ambit of the term “Dowry” whatever property or valuables
security given, inter-alia by either the bride to the bride-groom
or the bride-groom to the bride, at or before or any time after their
marriage, provided it is given in connection with such marriage.
Incidentally, the phrase “ at or before or any time the marriage”
appearing in clause (b) of Section 2 is an inclusive provision and in its
literary sense the time span involved in the giving or taking the dowry
ranges from birth to bereavement of the parties to the marriage. Strictly
speaking, these instances are governed by the provisions of the Act, but
who has to ring the bell ? Although it is given in connection with the
marriage, the mere statement that the property or valuable security is not
given in connection with the marriage will simply take away the
jurisdiction of the Act in the absence of any deeming provision to that
effect. The provisions of presumptions contemplated under Section 113-B of
the Indian Evidence Act apply only to the cases of Dowry deaths, not to
the cases of the Dowry. Legal Test in the Prohibition of Giving and Taking Dowry Sub-Section (1)
of Section 3 of the Act contemplates that giving or taking or abetting the
giving or taking of Dowry is a punishable offence. But sub-Section (2) of
Section 3 permits the giving of customary presents at the time of
marriage, provided there shall not be any demand for such presents.
Further, the value of these presents shall not be in excess of the
financial status of the person who presents the same or on whose behalf
these are made, and that the same are to be listed in the prescribed form
as required under the rules framed in accordance with the provisions of
the Act. What is important in this sub-Section is that the presents shall
be made only at the time of the marriage. The Act neither defines the term
“Present” nor provides in any clear terms as to the distinctive nature of
a present and Dowry. Moreover it is also not feasible to assess the value
of the presents vis-à-vis the financial capacity of the person who gives
such presents or on whose behalf these are given in each case. In this
connection the role of the Dowry Prohibition Officers appointed under
Section 8 B of the Act is yet to gain public importance. In such a
situation is it not to say that the law is too restrictive to deal with
these aspects and is too congenial to prolong the legal process because of
the inclusion of such ardent provisions. It is also not that the Act
indirectly allows giving and taking Dowry in the form of presents? In any
case law should be reformative and not restrictive. – Vandana Singh |
|
|
|
|
Analysis |
Architecture |
Astrology |
Ayurveda |
Book Reviews |
Buddhism |
Cartoons | Cinema |
Computing |
Culture |
Dances |
|
Home | Hindi | Bolography | BoloKids | Kabir | Poetry | Quotes | Workshop | Writers | Contribute | Search | Contact |
|
|