Home > Recent Judgements > Groom Refuses To Cooperate With Wedding Reception Over Gold Demand Supreme Court Upholds Conviction
Jan 29, 2025
INTRODUCTION
In the case between M. Venkateswaran VS The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, the case arose from a marriage which lasted only for three days. After the engagement ceremony held in 2006, the bridegroom and his family insisted that they would cooperate with the wedding reception only if 100 sovereigns of gold were given. The family of the appellant did not allow the bride’s brother to perform the customary practices on the marriage day. Though they participated in the reception, the appellant’s father took the bridegroom with him from the reception dais. Before the marriage reception concluded, the appellant went out from the reception dais and stood on the left side. The appellant refused to come up on the dais in spite of the bride’s relatives pleading with him. The appellant, at that point, told the relatives that after 100 sovereigns were presented, they could speak. The photographer also deposed that the appellant’s family did not cooperate even for taking wedding photos.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1872 (“IPC”) – 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.
- Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.
ISSUES
- Does the illegality of requesting gold, money, or other costly presents in conjunction with marriage allow for customary gift-giving?
- How does the court distinguish between genuine grievances and exaggerated claims?
- Significant precedent supporting the necessity for social change and deterring transgressions linked to dowries. But may such stringent restrictions result in legal abuse?
JUDGMENT
The case was initially taken up by a trial court, which convicted the groom of harassing the bride for dowry. The judgment was challenged in the High Court, which upheld the conviction. He then appealed to the Supreme Court with the contention that his actions did not amount to harassment under Section 498A IPC and that the demand for gold could not be said to be dowry. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and ruled that any demand for gold, money, or property in connection with marriage comes within the meaning of dowry under the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was further highlighted that any harassment caused to a wife by way of mental or emotional harassment with respect to dowry demands would attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC relating to cruelty by a husband or his relatives to a wife.
OBSERVATION
The Supreme Court decision that confirms the conviction of the groom marks an important milestone towards ridding Indian society of this evil called dowry. The case goes on to tell all and sundry that dowry is not just a part of some cultural activity, but it’s actually a criminal activity with its associated severe legal penalties. The Indian subcontinent thus inches one step closer towards marriage being based on mutual respect and not as some sort of transaction. With that judgment, the fight against dowry will be a long one, but this is the first step towards a more just and equitable society where marriage is free from coercion and financial exploitation.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
