|
Demand for Gift after marrige is not Dowry Says Supreme Court of India. Ask
any small child , when a wife after marrige demand any
Gift/money/property from husband and from his family , is it called
Dowry? The answer will be a big "No". Then why it is reverse in the case of Husabnd, does all the Husbands family a Free ATM Machine? But
our LAW makers as well as radical women orginasations never open thier
eyes or never try to understand the basic of the same , result more and
more misuse of Dowry LAW we wittness to extrote the money in more than
98% cases as per court record, it is the wife family demending and
taken money from husbands family in open court and the same is not
crime at all. Dowry itself is a Vogus word and it is
created by Indian radical feminist orginasations and greedy/money
minded girls family hide behind the word so called Dowry and cheat
thier own daughter/sisters basic right on Streedhan and equll right in
parental property and always treat the husbands family as free ATM
machine.
Save family foundation and thier associates
, even Ms. Madhu Kiswar, continously demand and urgue that if any one
harrese others for any money and property the same to be termed as
Extrotion or Blackmailling, but our LAW maker failed to accpet the
same. At last Supreme court understand that each and every dispute
can't be termed as Dowry harrasement, which is a small step to stop the
legal terrorism and misuse of 498A, DV act and crpc 125 maintiance act.
Every
4 min in india a innocent person( who never demanded any dowry or money
form wife) including ageold mother/pregent sisters/child are facing
false and fabricted Dowry case and send them behind the bar without any
evidence, as there is no eveidence is required and 498A is non-bailable
.Inspite of LAW comission, various Judges recomonded to make the 498A
bailable offence , our LAW makers have not done any effort to save the
innocent people. Let stop this legal terrorism by our radical women
orginasations, who even advocate that adultrity by a wife , killing
un-born child also should not be a crime in this country.
Demand for Gift after marrige is not Dowry Says Supreme Court of India. NEW
DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that demand for money and presents
from parents of a married girl at the time of birth of her child or for
other ceremonies, as is prevalent in society, may be deprecable but
cannot be categorised as dowry to make it a punishable offence.
This
means, if a daughter-in-law is being harassed for customary gifts by
parents-in-law, then they could be booked under ordinary penal
provisions but not under the tough anti-dowry laws providing stringent
punishments.
Acquitting
the parents-in-law of a woman who had accused them of harassing her for
dowry, a Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and S Sathasivam took
help of a 2001 judgment of SC to say that not all demands from the
parents-in-law could be categorised as 'dowry' under the Dowry
Prohibition Act. It said though the Act covers payment of money or
articles during, before or after marriage by the girl's parent to her
in-laws, the cash and presents given had to have a link with the
marriage to become objectionable in law.
"Other
payments which are customary payments, for example given at the time of
birth of a child or other ceremonies as are prevalent in different
societies, are not covered by the expression 'dowry'," said Justice
Pasayat, writing the judgment for the Bench.
A
Haryana trial court had continued the dowry harassment charges against
the woman's husband while acquitting the parents-in-law, the married
sister and brother of the husband. Though the high court allowed
quashing of charges against the sister and brother, it said the
parents-in-law were liable to be proceeded against.
The
apex court said that when the trial court had held that an attempt had
been made by the woman to rope in as many relatives of her husband as
possible, the HC should have given some reasons while reversing a
well-reasoned order.
It
said judicial discipline demanded the HCs to give clear reasons when
reversing a trial court order backed by facts. "Reasons substitute
subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that
if the decision reveals the 'inscrutible face of the sphinx', it can,
by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to
perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial
review in adjudicating the validity of the decision," the Bench said. Disclimer :This is totally writer personnel Views only. You may have different opinion. The name and place changed to protect the Persons Identity.
|
