The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

(Act no. 28 of 1961)

Contents

 

 

Sections

Particulars

 

Preamble

 

Introduction

1

Short title, extent and commencement.

2

Definitions of 'dowry'.

3

Penalty for giving or taking dowry.

4

Penalty for demanding dowry.

4A

Ban on advertisement.

5

Agreement of giving or taking dowry to be void.

6

Dowry to be for the benefit of the wife or her heirs.

7

Cognizance of offences.

8

Offences to be cognizable for certain purposes and to be non-bailable and non-compoundable.

8A

Burden of proof in certain cases.

8B

Dowry Prohibition Officers.

9

Power to make rules.

10

Power of State Government to make rules.

 

APPENDIX

 

 

 

THE DOWRY PROHIBITION (MAINTENANCE OF LIST OF PRESENTS TO THE BRIDE AND BRIDEGROOM ) RULES, 1985

THE DOWRY PROHIBITION AT, 1961(28 OF 1961) (20th May, 1961)

An Act to prohibit the giving or taking the dowry

BE it enacted by Parliament in the Twelfth Year of the Republic of India as follows:-

THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961

INTRODUCTION

The ancient marriage rites in the Vedic period are associated with Kanyadan. It is laid down in Dharamshastara that the meritorious act of Kanyadan is not complete till the bridegroom was given a dakshina. So when a bride is given over to the bridegroom, he has to be given something in cash or kind which constitute varadakshina. Thus Kanyadan became associated with varadakshina i.e. the cash or gifts in kind by the parents or guardian of the bride to the bridegroom. The varadakshina was offered out of affection and did not constitute any kind of compulsion or consideration for the marriage. It was a voluntary practice without any coercive overtones. In the course of time, the voluntary element in dowry has disappeared and the coercive element has crept in. it has taken deep roots not only in the marriage ceremony but also post-marital relationship. What was originally intended to be a taken dakshina for the bridegroom has now gone out of proportions and has assumed the nomenclature 'dowry'.

The social reformers of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have striven hard for the abolition of various social evils including the evil of dowry system. Long before India gained independence, the then provincial Government of Sind passed an enactment known as "Sind Deti Leti Act, 1939" with a view to deal effectively with the evils of dowry system but the enactment had neither any impact nor could create the desired effect. During the last few decades the evils of dowry system has taken an acute form in almost all parts of the country and in almost all the sections of society. In a bid to eradicate this evil from the society, the State Governments of Bihar and Andhra Pradesh enacted "The Bihar Dowry Restraint Act, 1950" and "The Andhra Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Act, 1958" for the respective States, but both these enactments failed to achieve the objectives for which they were enacted.

The evil of dowry system was assuming enormous proportions and the minds of right thinking persons both outside and inside the State Legislatures and the Parliament were shattered. The matter was raised in the Parliament in very first session of the Lok Sabha. Many proposals for restraining dowry were placed in the Parliament in the form of Private Members Bills. During the course of discussions on a non-official Bill in the Lok Sabha in 1953, the then Minister of Law gave an assurance to the House that a bill on the subject would be prepared in consultation with the State Governments. In pursuance of the assurance, a Bill was subsequently submitted for consideration of the Cabinet. The Cabinet then decided that the proposal might be held in abeyance till the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act. After the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956, the Government felt that a separate legislation to prohibit dowry was not a matter of urgency. As the problem continued to increase the issue was against and again agitated in the Parliament as well as in State Legislatures. On account of pressure both at political and social levels, the Government finally decided to process the legislation. On 24th April, 1959 the dowry Prohibition Bill, 1959 was introduced in the Lok Sabha. After some discussion, the Bill was referred to a Joint Committee of both the Houses of Parliament. The Joint Committee presented its report with some amendments in the Bill. Both the Houses of Parliament did not agree with the amendments as reported by the Joint Committee and ultimately the Bill was considered at the Joint Sittings of both the Houses of Parliament held on 6th and 9th May,1961.

ACT 28 OF 1961

The Dowry Prohibition Bill was passed in the Joint Sittings of both the Houses of Parliament and it became an Act - The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961) and it received the assent of the President on 20th May, 1961.

LIST OF AMENDING ACTS

    1. The Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984.
    2. The Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986.

1. Short tile, extent and commencement- (1) This Act may be called the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

(3) It shall come into force on such date (Note: It came into force on 1st July, 1961) as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.

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

    1. By one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or
    2. By the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, , to either party to the marriage or to any other person,

At or before [(Note: Subs. by Act 43 of 1986, sec.2) or any time after the marriage] [(Note: Subs. by Act 63 of 1984, sec.2) in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include] dower or mahr in the case or persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applied.

(Note: Explanation I omitted by act 63 of 1984, sec.2).

Explanation II- The expression "valuable security" has the same meaning as in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

Comment: “…even if the demand is long after the marriage the same could constitute dowry, if other requirements of the section are satisfied.” : State of H.P v. Nikku Ram, AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 67

3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.- [(Note: Section 3 re-numbered as sub-section (1) thereof by Act No.63 of 1984, sec.3) (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 a term which shall not be less than [(Note: Subs. by Act 43 of 1986, Sec.3) 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 a adequate and special reasons to be recorded in he judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of a term of less than [(Note: Subs. by Act 43 of 1986, Sec.3) five years.]

(2) [(Note: Ins. by Act 63 of 1984, sec.3) Nothing is sub section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to, -

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

Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given .

4. [(Note: Subs. by act 63 of 1984, sec.4) Penalty for demanding dowry.- If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.

Provided that the Court may, for a adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.

Chamber Practice.com, the legal service provider