Ram Lata vs Dalbir Singh

Gokal Chand Mital, J.

The parties to this appeal are wife and husband and the appeal arises out of the judgment of the Magistrate dismissing complaint filed by Smt. Ram Lata against her husband Dalbir Singh under Sections 4, 4B and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (for short the Act).

The appellant was married to the respondent on 2751979 at Chandigarh. The wife belongs to Chandigarh whereas the husband belongs to Himachal Pradesh. Permission to prosecute the husband under Sections 4, 4B & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was obtained and complaint dated 1091980 was filed against him in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Paras 6 to 8 of the complaint are relevant for consideration which are reproduced hereunder :

"16. That the accused demanded more dowry from the complainant and ultimately, because of the threat that the father of the complainant being a Class IV employee could not satisfy the demand of more dowry, the complainant was denied the privilege of marriage and was treated with cruelty. The accused refused to maintain the complainant for nonpayment of dowry."

"17. That compelled with the circumstances, the complainant left the house of the accused at Dharamsala on 26th November, 1989, at about 1115 A.M. when the accused was not at the house. The complainant came to Chandigarh in three clothes.

"18. That the complainant requested the accused to return all the dowry articles to her which were given to him at the time of marriage but he has refused to transfer the said articles to the complainant."

On the basis of these allegations, the Magistrate issued show cause notice to the husband for an offence under Sec. 4B of the Act to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In support of the complaint the wife appeared as a witness besides her father and one more witness. The tenor of the evidence is that there was demand of dowry and for not fulfilling it the wife was given beating and was turned out of the house; that in spite of the demand the articles of dowry were not returned.

When the allegations were put to the husband in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he denied the same and produced one witness in defence.

The learned Magistrate by judgment dated 821983 acquitted the husband on a finding that accepting the facts in the complaint no case under Section 4B of the Act was made out. This is appeal by the wife.

Section 4B of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time reads as under :

"4B. Penalty for depriving any party of rights and privileges of marriage :

Any party to the marriage who, after the marriage, deprives the other party of the rights and privileges of marriage, or tortures or refuses to maintain the said other party, for nonpayment of dowry, and any person who assists such party in the commission of such offence, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, and fine which may extend to five thousand rupees."

There is no evidence that the husband deprived the wife of the rights and privileges of marriage or refused or maintain the wife for nonpayment of dowry. As regards torture for nonpayment of dowry, reliable evidence has been produced. In fact reading of para 7 of the complaint shows that she of her own accord left husband's house and came to her father's house in the absence of husband. The only complaint made is for not returning the articles of dowry and such a matter is not covered by Section 4 B of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the learned Magistrate was right in acquitting the husband.

Far the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.