The recent judgment by the Allahabad High Court sheds light on the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and the Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999. The court observed that while grooms and their families are being prosecuted for demanding dowry under Section 3 of the Act, no action is taken against the bride and her family for giving dowry due to a provision in Section 7(3) of the Act.
Justice Vikram D. Chauhan emphasized that relying solely on the statement of the person giving dowry for prosecution is unjust, and there must be other corroborative evidence, such as sources of income and disclosures under the Income Tax Act.
The court highlighted the discrepancy in punishment for demanding dowry (up to 2 years) compared to receiving dowry (not less than 5 years), suggesting that false allegations might be made to subject grooms and their families to higher punishment. It pointed out the importance of maintaining lists of presents received at the time of marriage under Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999, to determine which gifts fall under exceptions provided by the Act.
The judgment raised concerns about the non-compliance of these rules and the lack of action by authorities in ensuring their implementation. It called for effective measures to prevent false allegations and disrespect for the law, suggesting campaigns to promote awareness about dowry prohibition and encouraging the submission of lists of presents.
Additionally, the court directed the State Government to explain why these rules were not being implemented and to disclose the steps taken to prevent dowry and prosecute offenders. It also questioned why investigations were not conducted into the sources and usage of dowry money, as well as the recovery and transfer of dowry to the bride as mandated by the Act.
Overall, the judgment underscores the need for comprehensive implementation of dowry prohibition laws and rules to address the issue effectively and prevent injustice against both grooms and brides.