The court emphasized the interpretation of the term 'dowry' under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and its implications on the maintainability of suits for recovery of dowry amounts.

1. The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of the appellant. The suit was for recovery of the dowry amount of Rs. 3,591/-with interest, paid to the appellant on 13-2-1968 in connection with the marriage of the respondent-plaintiff with the son of the appellant. The marriage took place on 5 11 1967. The suit was instituted without any earlier demand by the issuance of a notice. The defendant deposited the whole dowry amount in Court on getting summons from Court and pleaded that he was not liable for costs and interest. This case was repelled by the trial Court and the trial Court decreed the suit making the defendant-appellant liable to pay interest and costs amounting to Rs. 400/-. In appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court since the appellant and counsel were absent.

2. Counsel for the appellant contended that he had paid the amount immediately on receipt of summons from Court and that if he had received a notice from the plaintiff before the institution of the suit, he would have readily paid the amount. In fact, he did not seriously contest his liability to pay the amount. However, the appellant raised a new plea that the suit itself is not maintainable since the amount involved in the suit is covered by the expression 'dowry' as defined in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Act 28 of 1961 for short the Act.

3. The expression'dowry' is defined in S.2 of the Act, which reads as follows:

"2. Definition of 'dowry'. In this Act, 'dowry' means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly

(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or

(b) by the parents of either party to the marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person;

at or before or after the marriage as consideration for the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personnel Law (Shariet) applies."

S. 3 of the Act makes, giving and taking dowry an "offence punishable, with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 500/-...". S.4 of the Act makes demanding of dowry after the commencement of the Act punishable as above. S.5 makes any agreement for the giving or taking of dowry void. Thus, the Act prohibits the very concept of dowry and therefore a suit for recovery of an amount, the giving of which is made unlawful in law, is not maintainable.

4. I hold that the Streedhanam which is the subject-matter of the suit falls within the expression 'dowry' occurring in the Act since it takes in any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person to either party to the marriage or to any other person. The amount in question, it cannot be said, comes outside the definition. Since the giving or receiving of the amount in question is opposed to law, a suit for recovery of the said amount is not maintainable and therefore interest on the amount cannot be decreed. Nor can costs be awarded.

5. Counsel for the appellant incidentally raised an alternative argument based on S.6 (1) (b) of the Act, which reads thus:

"6. (1) Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in question with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman,

(b) if the dowry was received at the time of after the marriage, within one year after the date of its receipt"

According to the appellant, the marriage took place on 5111967 and the suit was filed on 27th August, 1968, that is, before the expiry of one year mentioned in the above sub-section. I do not think it necessary to consider this question since I have already held that the appellant is entitled to succeed in this second appeal as the suit for recovery of the amount is bad in law.

6. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, perhaps now adorn