Sunday, January 07, 2007
Confusion
In an important ruling the Supreme Court has ruled that asking money to meet domestic needs doesn't constitute "Dowry" as defined in the Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. I dont know what the Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act says. But do know for sure, the saying that "Law is an Ass" is perfectly true in this regard.
Though I know nothing about the section 2 of Dowry act and what it says, I am pretty much sure, that the Dowry that is being asked is mostly and (if I am anything to go by) only for household domestic needs. I would loathe any court deciding what would be my domestic need- I would definitely not like any court to decide what should I need and more so, I would definitely not like any act to define what can be and cannot be my domestic need- this sort of interpretation would definitely lead to more crooks using this ruling and escaping the justice.
Would any person claim that the dowry that he is asking is for luxury? Any one who asks money from his wife for marriage is no Man...I would not rate him anymore than I would rate a pimp. Dowry in itself is a deplorable practice. To give a twist to it as a household expense, domestic need and luxury is even more disappointing. What is manure today might be a car tomorrow. Would it be then left to a court that a man might need manure (ofcourse for agricultural purposes :P) more than he need a car? Shall courts decide what is a necessity and what is not? Is it a decision to be taken by the court or by the individual?- Now, this leads to even more confusion as to where should one draw a line. It would be highly insane to expect every man to be moral to himself and to his conscience. I would not definitely not think it would come to that state.
I am confused at the end of it- Why is it that I always end up thus?
Though I know nothing about the section 2 of Dowry act and what it says, I am pretty much sure, that the Dowry that is being asked is mostly and (if I am anything to go by) only for household domestic needs. I would loathe any court deciding what would be my domestic need- I would definitely not like any court to decide what should I need and more so, I would definitely not like any act to define what can be and cannot be my domestic need- this sort of interpretation would definitely lead to more crooks using this ruling and escaping the justice.
Would any person claim that the dowry that he is asking is for luxury? Any one who asks money from his wife for marriage is no Man...I would not rate him anymore than I would rate a pimp. Dowry in itself is a deplorable practice. To give a twist to it as a household expense, domestic need and luxury is even more disappointing. What is manure today might be a car tomorrow. Would it be then left to a court that a man might need manure (ofcourse for agricultural purposes :P) more than he need a car? Shall courts decide what is a necessity and what is not? Is it a decision to be taken by the court or by the individual?- Now, this leads to even more confusion as to where should one draw a line. It would be highly insane to expect every man to be moral to himself and to his conscience. I would not definitely not think it would come to that state.
I am confused at the end of it- Why is it that I always end up thus?
Jus been
Free Counter
Get awesome blog templates like this one from BlogSkins.com
© All that is written here are the Genuine Products of the Intellect of the author and are protected by the relevant copyright acts...If you wish to quote the highness you can do so at your own risk and at risk to the integrity of the author's cerebrum.
Disclaimer:
All that is written in this blog are the personal opinions of the author and are in no way representative of the organisation that the author has worked for or is working for or would be working for in the future.
3 Comments:
You can go thro the following links to know about Section2 of the Dowry Act.
http://socialwelfare.delhigovt.nic.in/dowryact.htm
http://www.sudhirlaw.com/DOWRYACT.htm
Think the court has only clarified on the definition of what can be treated as "Dowri". Since the word Dowri had been coined only around the word "Marriage"
and referring to the text
"A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry,"
Think the Logic used to defend this is right. Just read this thinkin that the "marriage" factor is not taken into account.
Since if u are going to read the above statement with "marriage" as the context, then almost every want of a man from a woman can be termed as "Dowri" , since Dowri as per definition is "Property or Valuable security" :-) and the meaning of this can vary from person to person.
May b if u are referring to the
harassment aspect, then i am on ur side
.
But think the court has convicted the offenders
"Though the accused was acquitted by the trial court for the offence of cruelty and abetment, he and his mother were convicted on the charge of dowry death."
So u are confused about the ruling or the loop holes,the ruling has exposed in the process. :-)
Just a small doubt!
reg. the following statement
"To give a twist to it as a household expense, domestic need and luxury is even more disappointing."
So how do u rate women who demand the man's monthly salary and luxury at the beginning of every month?
Would you treat it also as "Dowri"?
@Raj: Fair enough argument...however, do note that, while a woman demand the money and other luxury from the man, Man demands from her parents- that is where I am not in agreement with the practice...a wife is legally and morally correct(as husband is) to demand money or luxury from the man,as a man is to demand from the woman....that is perfectly fine if the man demands a woman's salary for congenial living. To ask from her family....well..can it be fine?
First point.
"While a woman demand the money and other luxury from the man, Man demands from her parents- that is where I am not in agreement with the practice"
So does it mean that a man will stop asking once his in-laws pass away. :)
It usually, "Somehow Money" which is the one thing that matters to any Man/his parents.
If the woman can get it from her parents then its fine, and so it is, if she can earn the money herself. Its ultimately, the NEED FOR MONEY that is the real motive. So u can really tell if this is OK/Not OK, based on the Motive for which the money is used and not based on any other thing.
May b the expectation of the man is more , when the woman's parents are alive. and less /zero when his in-laws are not there.
Second Point:
"a wife is legally and morally correct(as husband is) to demand money or luxury from the man,as a man is to demand from the woman...."
May b u can go thro
http://www.indialawinfo.com/bareacts/ipc.html
To actually see that there is no Law which gives the right to any Man or Woman to demand money or luxury from the Spouse.
May b u are referring to liberties and not rules/law.
Post a Comment
<< Home