JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26th day of November, 2021 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is the husband of the 4th respondent. The impugned order has been passed by the 3rd respondent/dowery prohibition officer.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner married the 4th respondent on 06.9.2020 at Mangalathukavu Devi Temple, Ashtamudi, Kollam, as per the customs and practices prevailing among Hindu community. After the marriage they are living together as husband and wife at the residence of the petitioner. Their relationship was strained and 4th respondent initiated legal proceedings against the petitioner and ultimately she filed a petition before the nodal officer (Dowry cases), which is produced as Exhibit P1.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 4th respondent's parents and her brother deposited all her ornaments in the bank locker, except daily use jewelery in the name of the 4th respondent and the petitioner at Thodiyoor Service Co-operative Bank, Edakulangara Branch. Even the key is also in the possession of the 4th respondent alone. 4. Notice was issued to the 4th respondent. He appeared through the counsel. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared through the Public Prosecutor. Public Prosecutor produced Notification No.G.O.(P) No.13/2021/SJD dated 13.7.2021 published as S.R.O. No.520/2021 in Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.2060 dated 15.7.2021.

5. Heard both sides.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the 4th respondent, District Dowry Prohibition Officer (in short 4th respondent), will not get jurisdiction to entertain the petition, since even as per the averments in Exhibit P1, the allegation of 4th respondent is that the ornaments which have been given to her for her well being have been kept in the bank locker and it was not yet returned.

7. Vadhiboyana Venkata Krishna Reddy v.

C.Venkata Rumania Reddy and Another 2019 KHC 2305 was relied on wherein it has been held that “Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, enables the wife to file a suit for recovery of the dowry paid, if the person who received the dowry has failed to transfer the property for the benefit of the woman within the prescribed period.” But the Act r/w Kerala Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Rules 2021 ( in short Rules) provides jurisdiction to the 4th respondent in dealing with matters if it is proved that Dowery has been received by any person other than the woman.

8. As per Rule 2 of amended rules for the words, “Regional Dowry Prohibition Officer” in the Kerala Dowry Prohibition Rules 2004, wherever occur is substituted by “District Dowry Prohibition Officer”.

9. It is relevant in this context to quote Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as amended by Act 63 of

1984 (in short the ‘Act’) which reads as follows:

3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry: [1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable [with imprisonment for 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].

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special

reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than [five years].

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to-

(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf).

Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;

(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in the behalf)

Provided that such presents are entered in a List maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act.

Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to t