Salient features of Dowry Prohibition Act & reasons for the failure of The Act
Q. Write a short not on Salient features of Dowry Prohibition Act? Critically analyse reasons for the failure of The Act?
Dowry Prohibition
Act, Indian law, enacted on May 1,
1961, intended to prevent the giving or receiving of a dowry. Under the Dowry
Prohibition Act, dowry includes property, goods, or money given by either party
to the marriage, by the parents of either party, or by anyone else in
connection with the marriage. The Dowry Prohibition Act applies to persons of
all religions in India.
The original text of the Dowry Prohibition Act was widely judged to be
ineffective in curbing the practice of dowry. Moreover, specific forms of
violence against women continued to be linked to a failure to meet dowry
demands. As a result, the legislation underwent subsequent amendment.
In 1984, for example, it was changed to specify that presents given to a bride
or a groom at the time of a wedding are allowed. The law required, however,
that a list be maintained describing each gift, its value, the identity of the
person giving it, and the person’s relation to either party to the marriage.
The act and relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code were further amended to protect
female victims of dowry-related violence. Another layer of legal protection was
provided in 2005 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Salient features of the Dowry Prohibition Act:-
1.
What is the penalty for giving,
taking, or demanding dowry?
The penalty for giving or taking dowry, or abetting such activities, is
imprisonment for not less than five years, and a fine of not less than Rs.
15,000 or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more.
The penalty for demanding dowry – directly or indirectly – from the
parents, relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, is imprisonment for at
least six months and at most two years, and a fine which may extend up to Rs.
10,000.
Courts may – for ‘adequate or special reasons’ – impose a sentence of
imprisonment of less than five years for giving or taking dowry, or abetting
such activities. For demanding dowry, they may impose imprisonment of less than
six months for such reasons.
2.
What kind of presents does this Act not apply to?
No penalties on giving or taking dowry under this Act shall apply to
presents given to the bride or bridegroom at the time of marriage ‘without any
demand having been made in that behalf’. The Act shall not apply to such
presents if they are listed in accordance with the rules made under this Act,
and if the presents given by or on behalf of the bride are of customary nature,
and their value is not excessive considering the person by whom, or on whose
behalf, the presents are given.
3.
What are the Act’s provisions on transferring property received as dowry
to the bride?
Where any other person other than the bride receives the dowry, such a
person shall transfer it the bride. If such persons received the dowry before
marriage, they shall transfer it within three months of the marriage; if they
received it at the time of, or after the marriage, they shall transfer it
within three months of the date of its receipt; if the dowry was received when
the bride was a minor, such persons shall transfer it to her within three months
of her 18th birthday.
If any person fails to transfer the dowry within the specified time
limit, they shall be punishable with imprisonment of at least five years, and a
fine of not less than Rs. 15,000 or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever
is more. Courts may impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than five years
for such persons, for ‘adequate or special reasons’.
If a woman entitled to property under this section (Section 6) dies
before receiving it, her heirs shall be entitled to claim the property from the
person holding it. If the woman dies within seven years of marriage, for
reasons other than natural causes, the property shall be transferred to the
children or ‘held in trust’ for them. If she has no children, it shall be
transferred to her parents.
4.
If an offence under this Act is committed, on whom does the burden of
proof lie?
Where any person is prosecuted for giving or taking a dowry and abetting
such activities, or demanding dowry, such a person shall have the burden of
proving that they have not committed the offence.
5.
Who is the Dowry Prohibition Officer?
The Act says state governments may appoint as many Dowry Prohibition Officers as they think fit their jurisdiction areas. Such
officers shall prevent – as far as possible – the taking or demanding of
dowries, and the abetment of such activities; see that this Act’s provisions
are complied with; collect evidence for the prosecution of persons committing
offences under this Act, as may be necessary; and perform any additional
functions specified by state governments or rules made under this Act.
Reasons for the failure of The Act
The Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 has been on the statute book for over a quarter of a
century, i.e. for about 40 years, but we have not succeeded much in eradicating
dowry problems. This is because of the following reasons :
• In a democratic country guaranteeing
individual liberties and procedural due process, there are serious limits and
limitations in the use of criminal sanctions particularly vis-a-vis behaviour
traditionally tolerated and customarily followed.
• Strategically the
enforcement thrust of social legislations ought to be preventive and educative.
Whereas the Dowry Prohibition Act is more reactive and punitive.
• Though ignorance of law is not and excuse,
functionally speaking it tends to operates as such in a population of whom
nearly 70 per cent are illiterate and poor.
• The saving of
dowry given voluntary in the form of presents, though subject to certain
conditions, create enough opportunities for the dowry seekers to escape the
penal provisions of the law.
• The requirement that the presents ought to
be customary and commensurate with the financial status of the giver is the
soft and unrealistic a provision to be of value in contested situations.
• The preparation and maintenance of lists of
dowry (presents) received is a commendable innovation though of dubious value
in the present circumstances. It is indeed doubtful whether genuine lists will
be maintained.
• The increased punishments and mandatory
sentences together with "presumption of guilt" in certain
circumstances tend to be counterproductive in some cases.
• States which are
expected to implement the Central law are not always motivated by the same
basic and enthusiasm as those evinced in Parliament, Financial constraints,
institutional inadequacies, lack of co-ordination, local political compromises
and sheer apathy and neglect often result in low priority to the enforcement of
social legislations like the dowry law.
• While there is lot of rhetoric on
participation of voluntary organizations in the enforcement of social legislations,
the infrastructures provided under the laws are invariably bureaucratic
extensions. Keeping the voluntary sector in the periphery. There is an element
of mistrust writ large in the provisions and a reluctance to share power and
accountability.
• Because of the
intimate relationship between dowry and the institution of marriage, dowry
offences shall not be pursued in such a way as to destroy marital
relationships. The purely criminal law approach through criminal courts
according to the normal rules of criminal procedure will have several
unintended consequences which may not necessarily lead to social good.
References
Comments
Post a Comment