Punjab & Haryana HC dismisses plea for retaining dowry items filed by husband convicted for murdering wife

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed the appeal moved by a husband convicted for his wife's murder against the order of the trial court releasing dowry items in favour of the father of the deceased. 

The division bench of Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur rejected the contention raised by the convict that the trial court had not appreciated that as per Section 15 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, after the death of wife, her belongings shall devolve upon her children and husband.

The bench held that the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, cannot be overlooked by invoking the provisions of Hindu Law relating to Succession. 

It said that the case at hand squarely fell within Clause 3 of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, so as to maintain the custody of dowry articles with the father of the deceased. 

Court pointed out that in the present matter, the case was with regard to custody of articles of dowry which were meant for the use of the deceased which was quite different from the position of other property in the hands of deceased.

Court also opined that the argument put forth by the convict that he was the owner of the ornaments/articles as they were recovered by the police from his house did not stand.

Court noted that the convict failed to place any material on record to prove his ownership over the said dowry articles rather the record indicated that dowry articles changed hands at the time of marriage. 

Therefore, the court held, "The trial Court has rightly placed reliance upon Balbir Singh’s case supra, wherein it was held that husband was not entitled to retain dowry even if he was acquitted and dowry articles will remain with father of deceased".

Court stressed that in the abovementioned case, the dowry articles were ordered to be given to the father of the deceased wife, even though the accused husband had been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt after the trial, while in the present matter, the husband had been convicted for wife's murder. 

Therefore, court found no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

Case Title: Sandeep Tomar v. State of Punjab