'Gifts Given In Marriage Normally Not Taken As Dowry': Allahabad HC Grants Relief To Relatives In Alleged Conversion, Dowry Demand Case

Noting that the matter may be an afterthought and as such, a detailed scrutiny is required, a bench of Justice Vikram D Chauhan called for a counter-affidavit in the matter from the State and the informant.

Co-accused Faraz Ather, a Muslim by religion, was allegedly in a romantic relationship with the deceased woman, a Hindu by religion. The two, intending to marry, filed affidavits (on December 6, 2024) for civil marriage before the Delhi Marriage Registrar, wherein the woman had allegedly affirmed her intent to marry as a Hindu.

However, on December 12, she died by suicide, following which, her father filed the instant FIR implicating Ather and his brother (Applicant no. 1), sister (Applicant no. 2) and mother (Applicant no. 3).

It was alleged that all four accused had demanded dowry and had also pressurised the deceased to convert to Islam.

Challenging the entire criminal proceedings, the 3 applicants moved the HC contending that their only involvement in the matter was attending a pre-marriage function, and that no specific overt act had been attributed to them in the FIR.

It was argued that the core allegations regarding the demand of dowry and religious conversion were directed solely at Faraz (husband of the deceased), not the applicants.

They also referred to a missing person complaint filed by co-accused Faraz with the Delhi Police after the deceased lost contact, and to the informant's father's request for a post-mortem stating it was a suicide.

Importantly, the applicants contended that no dowry was received by them, even as per the case of the prosecution. It was argued that the deceased died by suicide, purportedly because the mother and sister of the deceased had forced her to resile from the process of marriage.

On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party no. 2, opposed their application as he relied upon the statements of the sister and mother of the deceased, which were recorded on December 28, 2024, with regard to the allegations against the applicants of forceful conversion and demand of dowry.

He, however, could not show that any dowry was paid, and he only submitted that the amount given on Roka, which is a ceremony in the marriage, was in fact dowry.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the bench, at the outset, noted that the gifts given in the marriage normally are not taken as dowry.

The bench also factored in that the allegations of dowry and forced conversion emerged only in statements recorded 17 days after the deceased's death and the same were not mentioned earlier by the informant-father.

"The gifts given in the marriage normally are not taken as dowry. The statements of the sister and the mother of the deceased were recorded on 28.12.2024 although the deceased had died on 11.12.2024. It has not been shown as to why the aforesaid allegations were not informed to the father of the deceased, who is the informant and why the statements have been raised at the first instance with police authorities on 28.12.2024", the bench noted.

Thus, terming the matter potentially an 'afterthought', the Court observed that a detailed scrutiny would be required and directed both the State and the informant to file counter-affidavits.

Furthermore, the court directed that till the next date of listing, the proceedings in the aforementioned case, against the applicants shall remain stayed. It, however, clarified that the case against co-accused Faraz may go on in accordance with the law.