<%-- Page Title--%> Star Law Report <%-- End Page Title--%>

December 21, 2003 

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980

Any fresh demand of dowry will constitute an offence 

High Court Division (Criminal Revisional jurisdiction)
Criminal Misc. Case No. 10301 of 2003
Md. Hanif Howlader
Vs
Most, Jahanara Begum and another
Before Mrs. Justice Nazmun Ara Sultana and Mr. Justice Muhammad Abdul Hafiz
Date of Judgent: July 26, 2003
Result : Petition rejected summarily

Background
Nazmun Ara Sultana, J: This application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused-petitioner praying for quashment of the proceeding of the CR. Case NO. 9 of 2003 under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980 pending in the Court of Magistrate, First Class, Zone-1, Perojpur.

The above mentioned CR case was started on a petition of complain lodged by the complainant-opposite party Most Jahanara Begum on the allegation that she was married to accused-petitioner, Md. Hanif Howlader on 14.2.1994 by registered kabinnama. Two children were born in their wedlock. But since few months after their marriage the accused-started demanding dowry from the complainant and also used to torture her on that demand. At one stage the accused after torturing the complainant for dowry drove away her from his house with her children. Since then the complainant had been residing at her father's house. The father and other relatives of the complainant requested the accused to take her back abandoning the demand of dowry. But the accused did not agree and remained insistent on his demand of dowry.

However, the quashment of the above proceeding has been sought on the ground that the ingredients of section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are absent in this case and as such this case will not come under the purview of section 4 of the said Act.

Deliberation
Mr. Syed Ziaul Karim , the learned advocate for the accused petitioner has argued that according to the FIR the dowry was demanded long after the marriage and that there is no mention in this FIR that at the time of marriage or even at any time before or after the marriage there was any agreement for giving of any dowry. The learned advocate has contended that since at the time of marriage there was no agreement for giving of dowry, the subsequent demand of money or any other thing from the complainant will not constitute the offence of demand of dowry as defined in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980.

In support of his contention the learned advocate has cited a decision of this Division reported in 37 DLR at page 227 wherein it was held that to be 'dowry' it has to be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by the parties at the time of marriage or at any time before or after the marriage.

But the Appellate Division, in another case has already given a decision as to the dowry differing with the above decision of the High Court Division. In the case of Abul Basher Howlader Vs. the State and another reported in 46 DLR at page 169, the Appellate Division upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Appellate Division held that the subsequent demand of dowry even if there was no agreement for giving of the same would constitute the offence of demand of 'dowry'.

In that case the demand of dowry was made long after the marriage and there was no agreement for giving of dowry either at the time of marriage or at any time before or after the marriage. The Appellate Division upheld the conviction of the appellant Abul Basher Howlader under section 4 of the Dory Prohibition Act 1980. The court held that for a conviction under section 4 of Dory Prohibition Act, the world 'Dowry' need not be interpreted in terms of the definition of 'dowry' in section 2 of the said Act. Their Lordships held thus:- "we will say that if a fresh demand for dowry is made after solemnisation of marriage about which there was no prior agreement and which demand does not fall strictly within the definition of dowry in section 2, then the word 'dowry' in Section 4 is repugnant in the subject or context to the definition itself." Dowry' in section 4 has therefore to be understood in its ordinary meaning, namely property brought by woman to her husband at marriage or vice versa."

So, it is evident that the Appellate Division has already settled this point that if dowry is demanded after the marriage about which there was no agreement at the time of marriage or at any time before or after the marriage, will constitute the offence of demanding dowry which is punishable under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980.

Decision
It appears that in that case of Abul Basher Howlader Vs. The State and another (criminal appeal no. 8 of 1993) the same advocate Syed Ziaul Karim was the lawyer for the appellant. It is unfortunate that the learned advocate Syed Ziaul Krim inspite of being very much aware of this above decision of the Appellate Division has insisted much for a rule in this present case referring the above mentioned decision of the High Court Division.

However, from the above discussion it is evident that this application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure has got no merit and as such it is rejected summarily.

Mr.Syd Ziaul Karim, advocate for the petitioner.