BiyeGhar.com

The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the President on 26th December, 1980 and is hereby published for general information: An Act to prohibit the taking or giving of dowry in marriages. WHEREAS it is expedient to make provision to prohibit the taking or giving of dowry in marriages; it is hereby enacted as follows:— 1. Short title and commencement— (1) This Act may be called the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980. (2). It shall come into force on such date as the Government may by notification in the official Gazette appoint. 2. Definition—In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly.— (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) 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 the time of marriage or at any time (2) before or after the marriage as consideration for the marriage of the said parties but does not include dower or mehr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (shariat) applies. Explanation-1— For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that any presents made at the time of a marriage by any person other than a party to the marriage to either party to the marriage in the form of any articles the value of which does not exceed five hundred taka, shall riot be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this section, unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of the said party. Explanation-II— The expression "valuable security" has the same meaning as the section 30 .of the Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860). COMMENTS:To be dowry, it must be the property or valuable security to he given or agreed to be given as consideration for the marriage of the parties (3) It is to be paid at the time of or even after the marriage (4). Husband's parent, guardian or any relation may commit the offence (5). Claim long after marriage—A claim made long after marriage does not come within the mischief of the definition of dowry given in section 2 of the Act (6). Articles not given as consideration for marriage and no allegation to that effect, will not come within the definition of dowry (7). Only those articles are dowry which are given or agreed to be given as regard or reason or motive for solemnization of marriage (8) "Streedhan" is covered by the expression "dowry". Recovery of "streedhan" is opposed to law and is not maintainable (9). Payment made or property given to a female entitled to a share of the property as legal heir of the same, is not a consideration of the marriage and not dowry (10). 3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry—If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall not be less than one year, or with fine or with both (11). 4. Penalty for demanding dowry—If any person, after the commencement of this Act, demands directly or indirectly, from the parents or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall not be less than one year, or with fine or with both(12). (13) …………… …………… …………… 5. Agreement for giving or taking dowry to be void.— Any agreement for the giving or taking of dowry shall be void. *COMMENTS:*— Only those articles are dowry which are given or agreed to be given as regard or reason or motive for solemnization of marriage (14). Dowry was demanded by a letter from one place and the receiver of the letter got it at another place. Two places were under the jurisdiction of two Courts, the Court within whose jurisdiction the petitioner received the demand and the offence was complete, had jurisdiction to try the offence (15). 6. Dowry for the benefit of the wife or her heirs………. (16). 7. Cognizance of offences.— Notwithstanding anything contained in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V. of 1898); (a) no court inferior to that of a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act: (b) no court shall take cognizance of any such offence except on a complaint made within one year from the date of the offence: (c) it shall be lawful for a Magistrate of the First Class to pass any sentence authorized by this Act on any person convicted of an offence under this Act. *COMMENTS:—Welfare Organizations*—In an evolutionary change in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Act 28 of 1961) has been brought about by amending section 7 of the Act in 1985 in the following manner:— "[7. Cognizance of offences.—(1) Notwithstanding anything containedin the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),— (a) ......................................................... (b) no court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except upon— (i) its own knowledge or a police report of the facts which constitute such offence, or (ii) complaint by the person aggrieved by the offence or a parent or other relative of such person, or by any recognized welfare institution or organization; (c)...............................................................................(17)" The above amendment of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, giving legal status to the social welfare organizations to lodge complaint in dowry cases, has given impetus to the social workers to detect, file complaints, and assist the courts in the trial of the offences relating to dowry, a social malady for the poverty-stricken and customs-dominated people of this sub-continent. It has indeed, widened the scope for proper and legal redress of the affected persons. The salutary results of this amendment is undeniable, in view of the fact that it is very natural that the members of the dowry-affected family may not always suo-moto go to courts for various unutterable reasons. An external assistance may go a long way to mitigate the grievances of the silent sufferers of the scourges of dowry. *Public interest litigations—This amendment of the statute in India has removed the obstacles of the social workers to identify the cases of dowry cruelty and conduct the public interest litigations therefore* (18), Dower offences of grave nature are being separately death with in India by adding a new chapter XXA and a new section 498A to the Indian Penal Code (19). 8. Offence to be non-cognizable, non-bailable and compoundable — Every offence under this Act shall be non-cognizable non-bailable and compoundable (20). 9. Power to make rules— (1) The Government may by notification in the official Gazette make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. (2) Every rule made under this section shall, as soon as may be after it is made, be laid before parliament and if parliament, before the expiry of the session in which it is laid, agree in making any modification in the rule or agree that the rule should not be made the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect as the case may be, subject that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validi of anything previously done under that rule.
(1)	Published on 26-12-1980 in the Bangladesh Gazette (Extra ordinary).
(2)	Amended by Ord. LXIV of 1984 w.e.f 13.10. 1.984.
(3)	Mihir Lal Saha Poddar-vs- Jhunu Rani Saha, 37 DLR 227. Abul Basher Howlader -vs- The State, 1994 BLD AD 185 = 46 DLR AD 169 = 1994 BLT AD 120.
(4)	R. karim -Vs- Taslima Begum and another, 9 BLD 35 = 40 DLR 360. Ajit K. Pramanik & ors -vs- Bakul Rani Pramanik & ors, 46 DLR 296.
(5)	Salema Khatun and others-Vs- The State, 38 DLR 348 = 9 BLD 73 = 1986 BCR 100.
(6)	Anwara Begum -vs- The State and another, 1993 BLD 473. Alauddin Ahmed-vs-The State, 20 DLR 590. Trial vitiated for non-examination of the complainant under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure
(7)	1977 Chand L.R. Cri 212 (Punj); 1977 Pun L.J. (Cri) 1.
(8)	Inder Sain-vs-The State, 1981 Cri. L. J. 1116; 1981 Chand Cri c 90 Delhi
(9)	1979 Ker L. T. 386; 1979 Cr. L. J. 493; 80 Pun L.R. 737.
(10)	1980 Ker L. T. 353.
(11)	Amended by Ordinance No. 26 of 1986 w.e.f 30. 3. 1986.
(12)	Amended by Ordinance No. 26 of 1986 w.e.f. 30. 3. 1986.
(13)	Proviso of Section 4 omitted by Ordinance 44 of 1982 w.e.f. 9. 11. 82.
(14)	Inder Sain - vs-The State, 1981 Cr. L.J. 1116; 1981 Chand Cri C 90 Delhi
(15)	Daulat Man Singh Ahar-vs- C.R. Bansi, 1980 Cr. L. J. 1171. Y. Murarji - vs- Slate of Gujrat, 1980 Cr. L. J. 459.
(16)	Section 6 omitted by Ord. 64 of 1984 w.e.f. 13. 10. 1984.
(17)	Substituted by Act 63 of 1984 w.e.f 2.10.1985 in India
(18)	For cases on Public interest litigations vide the cases reported in AIR 1990 SC 1412 (S.R.Panclian - VS -J Reddy also AIR 1990 SC 2060.
(19)	A.K. Ravindar -Vs- J. C. Reddy AIR 1991 SC 1142; Waxir Chand -Vs- State of Mariana, AIR 1989 SC 78 .
(20)	Amended by Ord. No. 26 of 1986 w.e.f 30.3.1986.

Advertisement Request Form