30 August 2024 - Legal Updates

1. Dowry & Traditional Presents Given At Time of Marriage Aren’t Presumed to Be Entrusted To Bride’s Parents-In-Law: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that it cannot be assumed that dowry and traditional presents given at the time of marriage are entrusted to parents-in-law of the bride and would attract the ingredients of section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act provides that any dowry received by a person other than the woman in connection with her marriage must be transferred to her within the specified period. It further states that such dowry, until transferred, is to be held in trust for the benefit of the woman. Failure to transfer is punishable with imprisonment and/or fine.

In Bobbili Ramakrishna Raja Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, this court has held that giving dowry and traditional presents at the time of the wedding does not raise a presumption that such articles are thereby entrusted to parents-in-law so as to attract the ingredients of section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the court observed.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol made this observation while quashing an FIR filed by the father of a divorced woman seeking the recovery of her 'stridhana'—gifts and ornaments given at the time of marriage—from her former in-laws. A charge sheet was filed for offence under Section 406 of the IPC (criminal breach of trust) and under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Supreme Court found that apart from the complainant's statement, there was nothing on record to substantiate the claim that the appellants were in possession of the Stridhan. In Bobbili Ramakrishna case, the Supreme Court had observed that the common practice is that the bride takes the 'stridhana' articles to her matrimonial home.

The Court pointed out that the Separation Agreement between the daughter and her former husband had explicitly resolved all issues, including the division of personal belongings, at the time of their divorce. The Agreement included a clause

releasing both parties from any further claims, and thus the charge under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not made out, the Court held.

The Supreme Court also observed that no cognizable offence was made out under Section 406 of the IPC (criminal breach of trust).

The court noted that the FIR was filed in 2021, six years after the dissolution of the marriage in 2015 and three years after the complainant's daughter remarried in 2018. The Court said that the object of criminal proceedings is to bring a wrongdoer to justice, not to seek revenge or vendetta. It emphasized that delays in filing an FIR must be satisfactorily explained, which was not done in this case.

Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the Telangana High Court, quashing the complaint.

Case- Mulakala Malleshwara Rao & Anr. Vs. State of Telangana & Anr.

2. Delhi Education Rules – NDMC Not Liable To Absorb Staff of School Which Was Illegally Closed By Pvt Management: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) would not be liable for absorption and payment of benefits to the excess staff of the school run by the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee (DSGMC) on account of the closure of the school done by the DSGMC without the prior approval of the NDMC. The Court said that as per Rule 46 of the Delhi Education Rules (“Rules”), it was incumbent upon the DSGMC to get approval from the NDMC before closing the school when the NDMC contributes 95% of the fund amount used for the management of the school.

DSGMC's failure to take necessary approval under Rule 46 doesn't shift the responsibility upon the NDMC under Rule 47 to absorb and provide the salary and other benefits of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school run by the DSGMC, the bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta held.

It was a case where on account of the dilapidated condition of the school building and finding it difficult to run the school due to a large number of devotees, the DSGMC planned to shift the school outside the Campus of Bangla Sahib Gurudwara, Delhi. The school was deemed to be closed since it was shifted to a place outside the jurisdiction of the NDMC. DSGMC received a 95% grant for running the school from the NDMC, and 5% amount is contributed by the DSGMC.

On account of the shifting of the school, the DSGMC didn't get the necessary approval of the NDMC as specified under Rule 46 of the Delhi Education Rules. Further, it claimed the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school who became surplus on account of the closure of the school would be entitled to the benefit under Rule 47 of the Delhi Education Rules.

Thus, in sum and substance, the appellant-DSGMC contended that the NDMC and the Director (Education), NDMC are primarily responsible for the absorption and payment of salary and other service benefits to the staff, which became surplus on account of the closure of the school.

Rejecting the DSGMC's/Appellant's contention, the judgment authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that since the entire exercise of the closure of the school was done without following the mandate of Rule 46 of the Delhi Education Rules, the DSGMC “cannot be allowed to take the shield of Rule 47 of the Delhi Education Rules so as to claim that the burden of re-employment and payment of salaries of the surplus teachers and the nonteaching staff upon closure of the school would be that of the NDMC.”

“The question of absorption only arises when the closure of the school is done in accordance with law, which requires a full justification and prior approval of the Director as per Rule 46 supra. Since the closure of the school in question was undertaken de hors Rule 46, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant-DSGMC that the onus to absorb the surplus teaching and non-teaching staff would be that of the NDMC, has no legal sanction and cannot be sustained.”, the court held.

Additionally, the court said that the NDMC should bear the burden of the pay and other service benefits accrued to the school staff including the pension pursuant to

the illegal closure of the school by the DSGMC. Further, it clarified that the NDMC would be entitled to seek reimbursement of the amount being spent by the NDMC towards the payment of such components from the DSGMC.

“It is clarified and reiterated that the appellant-NDMC shall be entitled to take recourse of the appropriate remedy for reimbursement of the amounts paid to respondents-staff of the school from the DSGMC, in case the DSGMC voluntarily fails to reimburse the said amount.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Case- New Delhi Municipal Council and Another vs. Manju Tomar and Others