The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 says, “Dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage, in connection with the marriage of the said parties but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. The expression ‘valuable security’ has the same meaning as in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code.”

In yet another case defining what dowry is, the Supreme Court has held that demand for presents to a child do not fall within the ambit of dowry and that mere evidence that a woman has been subjected to harassment does not in itself make out a case of dowry death as defined by Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code which says:

(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called ‘dowry death’, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

In this case, a woman named Jagadeshwari committed suicide by setting herself on fire after her husband, Narayanamurthy from Karnataka, and his parents, Kannappa and Shivabhushanamma, demanded a gold ring and silverware for on the occasion of her new-born child’s thread-changing ceremony which was to be held at her parents’ home.

Jagadeshwari’s family could not afford to give the child a ring and so, Narayanamurthy refused to take part in the ceremony.

The marriage of the couple had taken place in 1989 and was harassed by her husband and in laws for not having brought enough dowry right from the time of the wedding till the time of her death — she committed suicide on November 11, 1990.

After her death, both her husband and her in-laws were charged with offences under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code says:

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section, ‘cruelty’ means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

And Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 deal with the penalties for taking and demanding dowry and say that dowry to be for the benefit of the wife or her heirs.

The father-in-law died while the trial was underway and both the husband and mother-in-law were acquitted by the Trial Court for lack of evidence.

The Karnataka High Court subsequently convicted her husband under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code on appeal and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. It also convicted him under Section 498A of the Code and fined him 5,000 INR. However, it upheld his acquittal under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Also, it did not find Shivabhushanamma guilty of any offence.

The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of the mother-in-law also acquitted Narayanamurthy saying that although he had been given silverware at the ceremony, “such gifts are not enveloped within the ambit of dowry”.

Link