On December 19, 2022, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a Division bench consisting of Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao And Justice Sukhvinder Kaur, while giving custody of Stridhan articles of dowry meant for the use of deceased held that the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, cannot be overlooked by invoking the provisions of Hindu Law relating to Succession.
Brief Facts:
Shweta Singh, daughter of the original complainant, Ram Naresh Singh, got married to Sandeep Tomar on 12.02.2013. During the marriage a draft of Rs.10 lacs was given by the complaint. Moreover, a draft of Rs.10 lacs at time of shagun, gold ornaments valuing at Rs.5 lacs to his parents, and some household articles consisting of TV, Fridge, AC, Bed and furniture was given during the marriage. Additionally, Rs.5 lacs were spent on the meals. As per the statement given recorder by the Investigating officer, complainant stated that his daughter was repeatedly taunted by her parents in law and her husband for bringing less dowry and told her to bring Rs.10 lacs in cash and Duster car from her parents and otherwise they would eliminate her. When their demands were not fulfilled, they started asking to get transferred the plot in their name which was in the name of the complainant. On 08.07.2013, Shweta told her parents that Sandeep used to beat her frequently. So, the complainant was of the firm belief that his son-in-law and his patents were responsible for his daughter’s death. Thereafter, the FIR was filed on 10.07.2013, under Section 304-B/34 IPC, Police Station City-1, Abohar, against the accused.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge Fazilka, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/-. Against the above-said judgment, the appellant filed an appeal which was admitted by this Court. Thereafter on 20.10.2014, the complainant Ram Naresh Singh filed an application for releasing the dowry articles given by him in the marriage, which was allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dated 14.08.2015 was patently illegal, erroneous in law, against facts and evidence on record. He argued that the trial Court had not appreciated that as per Section 15 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, after death of wife, her belongings shall devolve upon her children and husband. He further contended that “he owner of the ornaments/articles which were recovered by the police from his house and the same cannot be released in favour of the complainant”.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel representing the state submitted that the ornaments/articles had been given by the complainant at the time of marriage of his daughter Shweta Singh deceased with the appellant. The counsel relied upon the judgements of Balbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, and State by Belakavadi Police Vs. Mallesha and further submitted that the complainant being father of the deceased Shweta Singh was entitled to receive the same.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble court observed that “though the appellant has claimed that he is owner of these dowry articles, but no material worth the name has been produced on record by him, to prove his ownership. A perusal of the grounds of appeal reveals that therein the specific ground has been taken that trial Court had not appreciated that as per Section 15 (1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, after death of wife, her belongings shall devolve upon her children and husband.”
The court further observed that deceased Shweta Singh died within 7 years of her marriage. The record revealed that she died unnatural death other than in normal circumstances. Thus, the case of the appellant would fall within Clause 3 of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, so as to maintain the custody of dowry articles with the complainant.
The court further stated that the trial court had rightly placed reliance upon Balbir Singh’s case, wherein it was held that husband was not entitled to retain dowry even if he was acquitted and dowry articles will remain with father of deceased. The court also relied upon the Mallesha’s case where it was held that “Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961- Section 6- Dowry death- Acquittal of accused- Directions issued that dowry articles which changed hands at the time of marriage to be restored to the family of deceased- This prevents unjust enrichment of accused and is in consonance with Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act”.
The Decision of the Court:
The Hon’ble court held that the impugned order was a legal and valid order. The order was not interfered with and was upheld. Hence, the possession of the ornaments/articles was given to the complainant.
Case Title: Sandeep Tomar Vs. State of Punjab
Coram: Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao And Justice Sukhvinder Kaur
Case No.- CRA-S-5048-SB-2015(O&M)
Advocate for Appellant: Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Mr. G.S. Badal, and Mr. G.S. Dhillon
Advocate for Respondent: Mr. J.S. Mehndiratta
Read Judgement ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments