Saturday, February 23, 2008

LET THE DOWRY BE EXECUTED!

(Published in Legal News & Views, Indian Social Institute, New Delhi, January 2007)

“Any young man who makes dowry a condition of marriage discredits his education and his country and dishonours womanhood.” …Mahatma Gandhi[1]

I. PROLOGUE

Marriages are made in heaven, is an adage. A bride leaves the parental home for the matrimonial home, leaving behind sweet memories there, with a hope that she will see a new world full of love in her groom's house. Alas! the alarming rise in the number of cases involving harassment to the newly wed girls for dowry shatters the dreams. In-laws are characterised to be outlaws for perpetrating terrorism which destroys the matrimonial home. The terrorist is dowry which is spreading tentacles in every possible direction.[2] An average of one dowry death is reported every 77 minutes according to the National Crime Record Bureau and victim support groups say complaints of dowry harassment are rising.

II. MEANING OF DOWRY

Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 defines the meaning of dowry as under:

“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 any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.

Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is at any time after the marriage. The words any time before the expression after the marriage clearly shows that even if the demand is long after the marriage the same could constitute dowry, if other requirements of the section are satisfied[3]. Again, the crucial words are in connection with the marriage of the said parties. This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with, need not be as a consideration of, the marriage of the parties. However, there can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses e.g. some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of dowry.[4] Under the Act, dowry as a quid pro quo for marriage is prohibited and not the giving of traditional presents to the bride or the bridegroom by friends and relatives. Thus, voluntary presents given at or before or after the marriage to the bride or the bridegroom, as the case may be, of a traditional nature, which are given not as a consideration for marriage but out of love, affection or regard, would not fall within the mischief of the expression dowry made punishable under the Act[5].

III. OTHER FORMS

Though law does not recognize but dowry may be extracted in many other forms rather be in cash, jewellery or gifts. Inspired from Mittals, Chatwals and Lalus, the groom’s parents may demand to arrange grand and extravagant functions of marriage to make them memorable for years in the community. After marriage, religious ceremonies and the birth of children often become the occasions for further demands for money or goods. Routes may be different but all lead to same end i.e. financial and physical oppression of the brides and their parents in the hands of grooms’ side.

IV. FROM ‘GIFTS’ TO ‘GROOM’S PRICE’

It is unclear when the practice began but dowry system was applicable in all civilizations and religions that did not permit inheritance right for property of parents to daughter and son equally. Ancient Indian Scriptures direct and witness the practice of gifting utensils, cows and lands during ‘Kanyadan’. However, the practice, inaugurated to help the newly wedded couple or just to show the natural affection by the parents, got twisted into a compulsion by the passage of time. In modern India, though, the Hindu Women Right to Property Act, 1937 followed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has theoretically provided a dual protection but in reality the words written in these Acts hardly have ever breathed the air as the societal norms still dictate that good girls do not ask for share. And practically, in most cases only sons inherit parental property and family businesses. And it is only in the form of dowry that daughters get a share- albeit an unequal one- in parental property. That is why even most women consider dowry as their legitimate due. They feel that a dowry-less wedding does not work in their interest because it only means their brothers end up with an even bigger share of family resources.

V. NOURISHMENT TO THE VIRUS

Almost all parents leave no stone unturned in searching higher economical and social status grooms in the belief that their daughters will be more comfortable and happy in such families forgetting that the marital chariot runs on the four wheels of mutual love, understanding, trust and cooperation; though wealth may be like the colourful flag fluttering on its top. They hope to enhance their social status and reap the benefits in long run by forging alliance with a well connected kinship network. The demand for such upwardly mobile men is far in excess of supply. Thus, the catch is, a commensurate consideration has to be paid in the form of dowry. Hence, magnitude of dowry commanded by a groom corresponds with his education, economical-social standing and earning potential than with the perceived share of a daughter in her parental property.

The system of marrying in the same cast, religion or region has considerably fostered the malady. Limited choice of prospective grooms brings the brides’ parents to their knees. In today’s globalized society, ruled by technology and economics, these meaningless bars have to be broken.

The old dictated doctrine of definitely getting married for the women adds wound to the injury. The parents have no alternative except getting their daughters married off even to a family of dowry lusty beasts knowing she may be butchered there since they have been taught that their souls would not be given place even in the hell if they do not perform their this God dictated pious and mandatory duty. This command might have hold water in earlier era when women used to be physically unsecured and economically dependent housewives only. Clock and calendar both have been replaced now. It is high time when the society has to acknowledge the right of being unmarried integrated in the freedom of getting married. Father of Nation also suggested[6], “The parents should so educate their daughters that they would refuse to marry a young man who wanted a price for marrying, and would rather remain spinsters than be party to the degrading terms. The only honourable terms in marriage are mutual love and mutual consent”.

VI. THE EVIL OUTCOME

It would not be an exaggeration to submit that even today there are families which see the housewife as a servant, or if she works, a source of income. She is considered to have neither capacity nor any right to express her belief or view on a family problem or planning. On the top, the custom of dowry is the most venomous sickening evil embedded in the present society which has turned the designed to be a heavenly abode into a death cell, a rope to the golden dreams into a deadly noose, an instituted safety net into a web of torment. Often, the parents, though aware of the tortures and harassments, force their daughters to go to their matrimonial homes dictated by the aged axiom: A girl’s litter is carried from her father’s home and bier from her husband’s home only. It has to be noted that most of the bride killers never had any antisocial past. However, the lust for holdings perverted them into criminals in the eyes of law. It is submitted that sometimes they themselves are victims as the horrifying fact is that many societies have crafted demand of dowry by the groom side a claim, the correlative duty of which has been imposed on the bride side. The enormity of dowry often determines the class and potentials of both the families in the community.

VII. EPILOGUE

It is distressing that dowry or bride price should mar married felicity with feudal cruelty in India, largely because the anti-dowry laws sleep in the statute book and social consciousness is not mobilised to ban effectually its vicious survival.[7] Today none wants to beget a girl child. Sex tests during the pregnancy followed by abortion of female foetus, though illegal, has become a social norm. Census of India 2001 reveals that there are 933 girls for 1000 boys in India which is really an alarming difference[8]. Earlier this year a report in The Lancet, a British medical journal, indicated that as many as 10 million female fetuses may have been aborted in India over the past 20 years by families trying to avoid the expense of having a daughter and hoping to secure themselves a male heir. The greed for dowry, and indeed the dowry system as an institution, calls for the severest condemnation. It is evident that legislative measures such as the Dowry Prohibition Act have not met with the success for which they were designed. Perhaps, legislation in itself cannot succeed in stamping out such an evil and the solution must ultimately be found in the conscience and will of the social community and in its active expression through legal and constitutional methods.[9] It would not do to plead that individuals cannot make the commencement and that they must wait till the whole society is ripe for the change. No reform has ever been brought about except through intrepid individuals breaking down inhuman customs or usages.[10] Though the preys of this beast are generally the have-nots but the haves have to lead them by dipping their extravagant marriages and saying firm no to dowry. Let the marriage be a sacrament rather an opportunity to show off the wealth and heighten the standing in the league. Media, the supposed fourth pillar of the society, has yet to play its the most important part. To get the independence from the shackles of dowry, another freedom fight is to be fought by the young generation. This deep-rooted evil shall not die a natural death, it has to be executed.

“Swaraj is not meant for cowards,” concluded Mahatma Gandhi, “but for those who would mount smilingly to the gallows and refuse even to allow their eyes to be bandaged. Promise that you will wipe off the stain of deti-leti[11], that you will die to restore your sisters and wives to their full dignity and freedom. Then I shall understand that you are ready for the freedom of your country.”[12]


[1] Young India, 21-06-1928.
[2] See Kamesh Panjiyar Alias Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC 388.
[3] See State of H.P. v. Nikku Ram and others, (1995) 6 SCC 219.
[4] See Satvir Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, (2001) 8 SCC 633.
[5] See S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P, (1996) 4 SCC 596.
[6] Young India, 27-12-1928.
[7] See Narotam Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 4 SCC 505
[8] http://www.censusindia.net/charts/fig12.html (visited on November 22, 2006).
[9] See Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi, (1983) 3 SCC 344
[10] Harijan, 25-07-1936.
[11] The word used for giving and taking of dowry in Sindh.
[12] Young India, 14-02-1929.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
© Praveen Kumar Jain
Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Mobile: +91 98712 78525
Email: pkj@lawyer.com

No comments: