Amending the dowry law, the Supreme Court on Tuesday made women eligible to file a case, who fled from the malice of her matrimonial home. Women now can file a case of dowry harassment under Section 498 IPC against her husband and in-laws at the place where she is currently sheltered.
According to article 498A, the husband or the relative of the husband who subjects her to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi calmed the diligence of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Section 177 of the Code mandates that criminal cases can be filed and tried only in courts within whose jurisdiction the crime occurred.
Also Read: IT raid exposes 'Widespread and well-organized racket' of Rs 281 crore in MP
The judgment came on the appeal of Rupali Devi, whose efforts to file a dowry harassment case from her parents’ place of residence, where she had fled, was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court.
With this decision, the apex court has recognized that cruelty under Section 498A is a regular offense, considering the facts and circumstances of each case.
What is Dowry Prohibition Act?
Enacted in May 1961, the purpose of the Dowry Prohibition Act is prevention of giving or receiving of dowry. Applicable on all the religions in India, dowry can be defined as property, goods, or money given by either party to the marriage. However, the original law was quite ineffective in curbing the malpractice of dowry. The violence against women linked to failure in meeting the dowry demands were on a hike over the period of time. Consequently, the legislation underwent subsequent amendments since many years.
Latest amendment:
The last revision in the Act before this came in September 2018 when the apex court restored an immediate arrest provision in it, by ruling that those arrested for cruelty to a married woman over dowry can approach the courts for bail to prevent the alleged misuse of the law. The ruling came from a bench led by then CJI Dipak Misra and ruled that the offence is both non-cognisable and and non-bailable. The offence is both non-cognisable and and non-bailable, which would mean bail can only be granted at the discretion of a magistrate. An earlier judgement was revoked too during this of Justice (retired) Adarsh Kumar Goel, which created a mechanism to prevent arbitrary arrests of every member of the husband family. This included relatives living outside the city, in which the marital home of the woman is situated.