If you thought that being in a live-in relationship would save you from being punished for demanding dowry, think again. In an order that can expand the rights of women in live-in alliances, the Supreme Court has turned down the plea of Koppisetti Subbarao who had disputed the dowry charge pressed by his live-in partner on the ground that they were not married.
The court also brushed aside another argument put forward by Subbarao that the anti-dowry law could not apply to him since he was married to someone else in what should serve as a cautionary tale for those who prefer live-in relationships to dodge responsibilities that come with marriage.
This ruling came from a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and A K Ganguly in an interesting case where Subbarao, faced with a dowry harassment case, said that he was not liable to be prosecuted under anti-dowry provisions -- section 498A of the IPC-- since there was no valid marriage between him and the complainant.
The Bench did not agree at all. "Can a person who enters into a marital agreement be allowed to take shelter behind a smokescreen to contend that since there was no valid marriage, the question of dowry does not arise," the Bench asked.
It elaborated on the reasoning, saying, "Such legal niceties would destroy the purpose of the provisions. Such hairsplitting legalistic approach would encourage harassment of a woman over demand of money."
Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Pasayat made it clear that the court would not let a narrow interpretation of dowry come in the way of women's rights. "The nomenclature `dowry' does not have any magic charm written over it. It is just a label given to demand of money in relation to marital relationship."
The Bench gave the example of the law recognising rights of children born out of void and voidable marriages, to explain its stand why it was defining dowry in a broad way. "Can it be said that legislature, which was conscious of the social stigma attached to children of void and voidable marriages, closed its eyes to plight of a woman who unknowingly or unconscious of the legal consequences entered into marital relationship," the Bench said.
If such restricted meaning was given, it would not further the legislative intent, the Bench said, adding, "On the contrary, it would be against the concern shown by the legislature for avoiding harassment of a woman over demand of money in relation to marriages."
Source:-May 2, 2009
Source:-May 2, 2009
For any Query:- deepakmiglani@hotmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment