In a unique incident, a man moved a Delhi court, seeking a criminal action against his wife’s family for giving him dowry without a demand.
However, his plea was rejected by the judge.
The man had challenged an order of the magisterial court that dismissed his request for an First Information Report (FIR)against his wife’s parents and brother for giving him dowry.
During the hearing, it also came on record that the man was facing a cruelty case by the wife’s family.
Additional Sessions Judge Navjeet Budhiraja was hearing the man’s revision plea against a July 2022 order of the magisterial court.
“Until the evidence is led by both the parties during the trial, the aspect of whether dowry was demanded or not cannot be effectively adjudicated upon and thus, at this stage, the averment of the revisionist (Kumar) that he never demanded any dowry from the respondents and despite that, a sum of ₹25,000 and ₹46,500 was transferred in his account would be a self-serving statement,” the court said.
In an order passed on October 5, judge Budhiraja noted that his in-laws had already registered an FIR against him under Section 498A (husband or his relatives subjecting a married woman to cruelty) of the IPC.
The magistrate’s observations regarding the man’s complaint that the in-laws while registering the FIR had categorically admitted that they paid dowry to Kumar and such an admission was an offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act, the court said.
Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act prescribes the penalty for giving or taking dowry.
The court further recorded that the magistrate’s observation that Kumar had concealed the fact that his wife and in-laws had made “serious allegations of persistent dowry demand” against him in the FIR.
It noted that the magistrate’s dismissal order stated, “His (Kumar’s) repeated averments in the instant complaint that he never demanded dowry and despite the absence of such demands, dowry was given, is unsubstantiated and appears to be an “attempt to hoodwink this court.”
The issues raised by the man had been “suitably addressed” by the magistrate, said the court.
No illegality was therefore found in the magistrate’s order, it added.