New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the word “dowry” should be given a wider interpretation to enter any request carried out on a woman, whether with respect to property or security that is valuable from any nature, and demanding the money to build a The house comes in Ambites Mahar.
Judge Judge NV Ramana, because Bopanna and Hima Kohli said the interpretation of the provision of laws that will defeat legislative intentions must be shunned for the sake of interpretation that will promote the object intended to be achieved through legislation to revoke social crimes such as dowry.
“In this context the word ‘dowry’ must consider the broad meaning to include any request that is done in a woman, whether with respect to the valuable property or security of everything.
When dealing with cases under the IPC part 304- B, The provisions that are promulgated to act as community deterrents and curb crimes of dowry demands, a shift in a court approach must be strict against liberals, from limited to widening.
Every rigid meaning will tend to be brought there are no real objects.
Therefore, the urge in the direction True is needed to complete the task of eradicating this crime that has become very rooted in our society, “said Justice Kohli, who wrote a verdict for the bench.
The court set aside the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which had freed their husbands and father-in-law for the death of fighting on the land requested by the victims themselves asked family members to contribute to the house, which could not be treated as a dowry request.
Read Alsodemanding Money for Home Construction is Mahar: SCNEW Delhi: The Supreme Court said that the word “dowry” must be given a broader interpretation to enter any request that is done in a woman whether regarding property or security is valuable from everything and argues that The demand for money to build a house comes in Ambites Mahar.
A bench on the field said that requests made by people who died themselves must be seen and understood in the right perspective when he was tortured to bring money from his family.
It was said that the court order of the trial punished them both for the true death of Mahar.
In this case, the deceased, who was five months pregnant, raised himself at his words home.
“We argue that the trial court has interpreted the request correctly the request of the money submitted by respondents about the deceased for the construction of houses as falling in the definition of Mahar said.
It will not be lost that the respondent has disappeared to torture the deceased and ask him to approach his family members to get Money to build a house and it was only at their persistence and insistence that he was forced to ask them to contribute a number of houses, “he said.
The court said the evidence brought on notes showed that the deceased was pressed to make such money requests to his mother and uncle.
“It was not a case of involvement but the case of helplessness was solely faced by the deceased in such a detrimental situation,” said the court while punishing his husband and father under Section 304-B ​​and part 498-A IPC and given seven years in prison Strict, which is the minimum sentence prescribed for violations under the 304-B ​​IPC section.
“The striking situation above, when viewed together, can hardly reduce respondent’s violations or take cases of PurView Part 304-B ​​IPC, when all the prerequisites for requesting the provisions are satisfactory, namely, namely Geeta Bai’s death occurs in her wedding house in seven The year after marriage; that the death occurred in abnormal state because it was burned and it was also when he was five months pregnant; that he experienced a cruelty and abuse of respondents before death and cruelty / such abuse in connection with demand for dowry, “the court said.