IMPORTANT POINT
It would be appropriate to construe the expression husband to cover a person who enters into marital relationship and under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty or coerce her in any manner or for any of the purposes enumerated in the relevant provisions, Sections 304B/498A, IPC, whatever be the legitimacy of the marriage itself for the limited purpose of Sections 498A and Section 304B IPC.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 498A and 304B-Charges for offences under-Whether presuppose valid marriage of alleged victim woman with offender husband-Appellant had been admitted in hospital on having consumed poisonous substance-She stated before Investigating Officer that she was harassed by her husband respondent and in laws-Appellant had married respondent-1 during life time of his wife-What happened to his first marriage not explained-Prosecution failed to establish that it stood dissolved legally-Whether Section 498A, IPC would be applicable in such a case-(Yes)-Who would be covered by expression husband for attracting Section 498A-Whether offence under Section 498A IPC committed-Case remanded back to the High Court.
       Held : The marriages contracted between Hindus are now statutorily made monogamous. A sanctity has been attributed to the first marriage as being that which was contracted from a sense of duty and not merely for personal gratification. When the fact of celebration of marriage is established it will be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary that all the rites and ceremonies to constitute a valid marriage have been gone through. As was said as long as 1869 "when once you get to this, namely, that there was a marriage in fact, there would be a presumption in favour of there being a marriage in law". (Para 9)
       Consequently, the evil sought to be curbed are distinct and separate from the persons committing the offending acts and there could be no impediment in law to liberally construe the words or expressions relating to the persons committing the offence so as to rope in not only those validly married but also any one who has undergone some or other form of marriage and thereby assumed for himself the position of husband to live, cohabitate and exercise authority as such husband over another woman. As the prosecution had set up a plea of gandharva marriage and had failed to prove the performance of ceremonies, it was not open to fall back upon the presumption of a valid marriage. It was further held that there was no such presumption if the man was already married. (Para 9)
       The question as to who would be covered by the expression husband for attracting Section 498A does present problems. Etymologically, in terms of the definition of "husband" and "marriage" as given in the various Law Lexicons and dictionaries - the existence of a valid marriage may appear to be a sine qua non for applying a penal provision. (Para 11)
        It would be appropriate to construe the expression `husband to cover a person who enters into marital relationship and under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty or coerce her in any manner or for any of the purposes enumerated in the relevant provisions - Sections 304B/498A, whatever be the legitimacy of the marriage itself for the limited purpose of Sections 498A and 304B IPC. Such an interpretation, known and recognized as purposive construction has to come into play in a case of this nature. The absence of a definition of `husband to specifically include such persons who contract marriages ostensibly and cohabitate with such woman, in the purported exercise of his role and status as `husband is no ground to exclude them from the purview of Section 304B or 498A IPC, viewed in the context of the very object and aim of the legislations introducing those provisions. (Para 17)
       (ii) Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961-Sections 2, 4, 5 and 6-Dowry-Definition-Property or valuable security so as to constitute dowry within the meaning of the Act must be given or demanded as consideration for the marriage -Concept of valid marriage.
       Held : The definition of the expression dowry contained in Section 2 of the Dowry Act cannot be confined merely to be demand of money, property or valuable security made at or after the performance of marriage. The legislature has in its wisdom while providing for the definition of dowry emphasized that any money, property or valuable security given, as a consideration for marriage, before, at or after the marriage would be covered by the expression dowry and this definition as contained in Section 2 has to be read wherever the expression dowry occurs in the Act. Meaning of the expression dowry as commonly used and understood is different than the peculiar definition thereof under the Act. Under Section 4, mere demand of dowry is sufficient to bring home the offence to an accused. Thus, any demand of money, property or valuable security made from the bride or her parents or other relatives by the bridegroom or his parents or other relatives or vice-versa would fall within the mischief of dowry under the Act where such demand is not properly referable to any legally recognized claim and is relatable only to the consideration of marriage. Marriage in this context would include a proposed marriage also more particularly where the non-fulfilment of the "demand of dowry" leads to the ugly consequence of the marriage not taking place at all. The expression "dowry" under the Dowry Act has to be interpreted in the sense which the statute wishes to attribute to it. The definition given to the statute is the determinative factor. The Dowry Act is a piece of social legislation which aims to check the growing menace of the social evil of dowry and it makes punishable not only the actual receiving of dowry but also the very demand of dowry made before or at the time or after the marriage where such demand is referable to the consideration of marriage. 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 Dowry Act. (Para 15A)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment discusses purposive construction of the term "husband" to include persons who enter marital relationships under feigned or proclaimed status and subject the woman to cruelty under Sections 304B/498A IPC (!) . - It interprets "dowry" broadly to include money, property, or valuable security given or demanded as consideration for marriage, before, at, or after the marriage, and emphasizes that mere voluntary traditional presents not given as consideration are not dowry [p_15A] (!) (!) . - It emphasizes purposive and contextual interpretation of statutes, using both textual and social context to interpret provisions aimed at preventing harassment related to dowry and marriage, rather than rigid literalism (!) (!) (!) .

What is the interpretation of 'husband' for the purposes of Sections 498A and 304B IPC?

What is the scope of 'dowry' under the Dowry Prohibition Act, including pre-, during, and post-marriage demands?

What are the appropriate interpretative approaches to statutory provisions as applied to social welfare legislation?

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. Parties to a marriage tying nuptial knot are supposed to bring about the union of souls. It creates a new relationship of love, affection, care and concern between the husband and wife. According to Hindu Vedic philosophy it is sanskar - a sacrament; one of the sixteen important sacraments essential to be taken during one s lifetime. There may be physical union as a result of marriage for procreation to perpetuate the lineal progeny for ensuring spiritual salvation and performance of religious rites, but what is essentially contemplated is union of two souls. Marriage is considered to be a junction of three important duties i.e. social, religious and spiritual. A question of intricate complexity arises in this appeal where factual scenario has very little role to play.

3. Filtering out unnecessary details, the factual position is as follows:

On 13-7-1998 information was received from Tagore Hospital, Jalandhar that Reema Aggarwal the appellant had been admitted on having consumed poisonous substance. On reaching hospital, ASI Charanjit Singh obtained opinion of the doctor regarding her fitness to make a statement. Appellant stated before Investigating Officer that she was married to Anupam the respondent No. 1 on 25.1.1998 and after the marriage, she was harassed by her husband-respondent No.1, mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law (respondents 2, 3 and 4) respectively for not bringing sufficient and more dowry. It was also disclosed that it was the second marriage of both the appellant and respondent No. 1. On the date of incident at about 5.00 p.m. all the four accused persons forced her to take something to put an end her life and forcibly put some acidic substance in her mouth. She started vomiting and was taken to the hospital in an unconscious state. The first information report was registered accordingly and on completion of investigation the charge sheet was placed and charges were framed for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the IPC ). Accused persons pleaded innocence. Seven witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version.

4. Before the trial Court the accused persons put the plea that charge under Section 498-A was thoroughly misconceived as both Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC pre-suppose valid marriage of the alleged victim-woman with the offender-husband. It was required to be shown that the victim-woman was the legally married wife of the accused. Since it was admitted that the appellant had married during the lifetime of the wife of respondent No. 1, what happened to his first marriage remained a mystery. Prosecution has failed to establish that it stood dissolved legally. Prosecution having failed to bring any material record in that regard. Section 498-A had no application. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ramnarayan & Ors. v. State of M.P. (1998 (3) Crimes 147 M.P.) The Trial Court held that the accusations, so far as Section 307 is concerned, were not established and in view of the legal position highlighted by the accused persons vis-a-vis Section 498-A the charge in that regard was also not established. Accordingly the accused persons were acquitted.

5. The State of Punjab filed an application for grant of leave to appeal which was disposed of by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court with the following order:

"We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance, have gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. In our considered opinion, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be held to be erroneous or that there was no perverse appreciation of evidence. Leave to appeal declined. Appeal is also dismissed."

6. In view of the dismissal of the State s application for grant of leave, criminal revision application which was filed by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed with t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 32

What is the interpretation of 'husband' for the purposes of Sections 498A and 304B IPC?

What is the scope of 'dowry' under the Dowry Prohibition Act, including pre-, during, and post-marriage demands?

What are the appropriate interpretative approaches to statutory provisions as applied to social welfare legislation?

Cases Referred (16)