( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of the common judgment passed in A. S. Nos. 24 and 15 of 1987 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Warangal.

( 2 ) IN both the appeals, plaintiff is the appellant. Second Appeal No. 178 of 1988 arises out of the judgment in A. S. No. 24 of 1985 which was filed against the judgment in O. S. No. 229 of 1981 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Warangal, by the respondent herein. Second Appeal No. 260 of 1988 was filed against the judgment in A. S. No. 15 of 1987 by the appellant-plaintiff against that part of the judgment in O. S. No. 229 of 1991 refusing to grant interest to the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE facts in brief are that the appellant filed the suit O. S. No. 229 of 1981 against husband and her father-in-law for recovery of Rs. 17,150/- which is made up for Rupees 15,000/- principal and Rs. 2,150/- interest, being the amount of dowry paid by her father before her marriage with the 1st defendant (who died during the pendency of the suit.) The father of the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- by way of a cheque dt. 19-4-1974 infavour of the 2nd defendant on the Canara Bank, Warangal and that her marriage with the 1st defendant in the suit was performed on 3-5-1974. The 2nd defendant kept the amount in a fixed deposit and had not paid the amount to her. She filed O. P. No. 32 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge s Court, Warangal seeking for a decree of nullity of marriage. O. P. No. 109/78 was filed by her husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Though she demanded return of Rs. 15,000/- paid by her father as dowry, the same was not returned to her and therefore she filed the suit for recovery of the said amount with interest.

( 4 ) THE 2nd defendant filed a written statement admitting that the marriage between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant took place on 3-5-1974 and that the father of the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as dowry, as consideration for the marriage between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant by a cheque dated 19-4-1974. The said amount was kept in fixed deposit for one year which was later withdrawn. The appellant is not entitled to seek return of the amount or interest therein since the payment of dowry by her father was illegal and as the same was opposed to public policy. The mother of the 1st defendant is also a necessary party.

( 5 ) IN the suit the plaintiff examined herself as P. W. 1 and second defendant examined himself as D. W. 1. The cheque was marked as Ex. A. 1. The lower Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 15,000/- and accordingly decreed the suit for Rs. 15,000/- with proportionate costs and had not granted the interest on the amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the decree of recovery passed by the lower Court, the 2nd defendant preferred A. S. No. 24 of 1985 before the Additional District Judge, Warangal, whereas aggrieved by the refusal of the lower court to grant interest, plaintiff preferred A. S. No. 15 of 1987.

( 6 ) THE Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the 2nd defendant and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff, against which, the present Second Appeals are filed by the plaintiff.

( 7 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, provides that if any person, after the commencement of the Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more, and the proviso under the section empowers the Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years for adequate and special reason to be recorded in the judgment. She also points out that Section 6 of the said Act provides that the dowry paid should be for the benefit of