Man seeks criminal action against wife's family for giving him ‘dowry without a demand’
The man claimed that he never demanded dowry from his wife's family but was given ₹25,000 and ₹46,500 by his in-laws.
In a peculiar turn of events, a man challenged an order that dismissed his plea seeking criminal action against his wife's family for reportedly giving him dowry without a demand but failed to convince the court.
Additional Sessions Judge Navjeet Budhiraja was hearing the man's revision plea against a July 2022 order of the magisterial court that dismissed his request for an FIR against his wife’s parents and brother for giving him dowry. It also came on record that the man was facing a cruelty case by the wife's family.
Also Read: Indian man’s virtual nikah: Denied leave by boss, groom gets married over video call
"Until the evidence is led by both the parties during the trial, the aspect of whether dowry was demanded or not cannot be effectively adjudicated upon and thus, at this stage, the averment of the revisionist (Kumar) that he never demanded any dowry from the respondents and despite that, a sum of ₹25,000 and ₹46,500 was transferred in his account would be a self-serving statement," the court said.
In an order passed on October 5, judge Budhiraja noted that his in-laws had already registered an FIR against him under Section 498A (husband or his relatives subjecting a married woman to cruelty) of the IPC.
Also Read: 'Fictosexual' Japanese man celebrates 6th wedding anniversary with cartoon wife
The court said the magistrate’s observations regarding the man's complaint that the in-laws while registering the FIR had categorically admitted that they paid dowry to Kumar and such an admission was an offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Section 3 of the act prescribes the penalty for giving or taking dowry.
The court further recorded the magistrate's observation that Kumar had concealed the fact that his wife and in-laws had made "serious allegations of persistent dowry demand" against him in the FIR.
Dismissal of order:
It noted that the magistrate's dismissal order stated, "His (Kumar’s) repeated averments in the instant complaint that he never demanded dowry and despite the absence of such demands, dowry was given, is unsubstantiated and appears to be an "attempt to hoodwink this court."
The court said that the issues raised by the man had been "suitably addressed" by the magistrate.
No illegality was therefore found in the magistrate’s order.