Nure Alam vs State (2013) 65 DLR

Fact:

According to complaint register case (CR) No. 298 of 2008 under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980 the case was between Nure Alam vs State. In this case, the fact was about dowry. The allegations made by the complainant (Most. Hasina Begum, wife of Md. Nure Alam) that the mother of the complainant took a loan of Tk 90,000 and paid it to the accused (Nure Alam, Husband of the informant on Complainant) for doing business claiming indirectly as a dowry by him, instead of doing business he has purchased a CDI Honda.  Further, the accused demanded Tk200000 as dowry from the informant, which the informant’s mother refused to pay. The accused throws her out of the house with a threat of divorce if she or her mother does not give the dowry money.

 

Issue:

Nure Alam filed a petition to define section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980 whether the allegations made dowry or not. According to the petitioner, the allegations against him are not defined under section 4 of the dowry Act as he did not claim the dowry money from the complainant or her mother. The amount of Tk 90,000 was not given to him as a dowry because of not claim it directly to them. Besides further claiming Tk 200000 was not also paid to him.

 

This is the main issue of the case that the accused refuges the given money as dowry because, under section 4 of this Act, the demand of dowry and the amount demanded as dowry should be paid are the definitions of the dowry.

 

Decision:

On October 28, 2010, the judgment was given convicting the petitioner under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980, and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) years.

 

Justification:

The judgment for this case was given following Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure as an inherent power of the High Court Division to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this code to secure the ends of justice. Because in Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, of 1980 has not defined the meaning of dowry whether it claims directly on infinity. Due to this reason, the accused has filed a petition against section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

 

The decision for this case as though the accused has not demanded the given Tk 90,000 directly but he had not paid it or had any intention to pay them in the future because they were given it one type of compulsory as a poor percentage, so they paid the money was not any gift for their marital life from the guardians of the informant. Besides he also threatened the informant to give divorce if the dowry money is not paid. For this reason, the definition of dowry covers this conduct of the accused, subject to proof punishable under section 4 of the Act.

Written by---
Ratna Khatun
Department of Land Management and Law
Jagannath University, Dhaka