Allahabad HC Rules Maintaining A List Of Gifts Received At Wedding, Know-Why?

The Allahabad High Court said "Maintaining the list is also important so that both parties to the marriage and their family members do not later make false allegations about taking or giving dowry in a marriage."

The Allahabad High Court ruled that keeping a list of gifts received by the bride or bridegroom at the time of marriage, as required by Section 3(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, is critical to preventing false allegations of dowry in subsequent disputes. "Maintaining the list is also important so that both parties to the marriage and their family members do not later make false allegations about taking or giving dowry in a marriage. The arrangement made by the Dowry Prohibition Act may also help in subsequent litigation between the parties to determine whether the allegations regarding the taking or giving of dowry are covered by the exception carved out under section 3(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961," Justice Vikram D. Chauhan said.

Section 3 of the Act imposes penalties for giving or receiving dowry, including imprisonment for not less than 5 years and a fine of not less than Rs 50,000 or the value of the dowry, whichever is higher. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 states that presents given to the bride or bridegroom at the time of marriage and not demanded are not considered 'dowry', provided that a list of such gifts received by either person is kept in accordance with the rules.

Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 specifies how the list of gifts under Section 3(2) is to be maintained.

"The Central government framed the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 in this regard, as gifts and presents serve as a token of celebration and honour in the Indian marriage system. The legislature was aware of the Indian tradition, and thus the aforementioned exception was carved out. The aforementioned list would also serve as a means of resolving dowry allegations that are later raised in matrimonial disputes, according to the court.

The court observed that Section 8B requires the appointment of a Dowry Prohibition Officer for the purpose of implementing the Act and, as a result, requested a response from the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary as to how many Dowry Prohibition Officers have been appointed in the state and, if not, why they have not been appointed at a time when dowry cases are increasing. The next hearing in the case will be held on May 23.