The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently gave a verdict where it said that a husband convicted of murdering his wife will not be entitled to claim ownership over the dowry articles received at the time of marriage in view of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Bench of Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur gave the observation while listening to an appeal filed by the convicted husband against the state of Punjab and other respondents. He had challenged the order dated August 14, 2015, passed by the Fazilka Additional Sessions Judge, vide which the “stridhan”, including gold ornaments and other articles given in the marriage, were ordered to be released into the complainant-father of deceased.

The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the Fazilka Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated July 21, 2014, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC before sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

The appellant-husband’s counsel contended the impugned order was patently illegal, erroneous in law, against facts and the evidence on record. The trial court erred in passing the order as “stridhan” literally meant woman’s property. It comprised things she receives as gifts from her relatives, including movable property such as ornaments and dresses.

The Counsel for the State argued that the ornaments and articles were given by the complainant at the time of marriage of his deceased-daughter and therefore, the complainant being father of the deceased was entitled to receive the same.

The Court said no material proving ownership has been produced by the appellant. On the argument that the trial court failed to consider Section 15 (1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the court said:

” It is quite contrary to the arguments now raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, wherein now he is claiming the appellant to be the owner of these articles. So once the appellant has taken the plea that provisions of Section 15 (1) of Hindu Succession Act were to be applied, it amounts to implied admission on his part that he was not owner of these articles”

The Court also referred to Section 6(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as per which, where a woman dies within seven years of her marriage, otherwise, than due to natural causes, the property she is entitled to under Section 6(1), shall be transferred to her parents if she has no children.

The Court, relying on the decisions in Balbir Singh”s and Mallesha’s case, where it was held that husband was not entitled to retain dowry even if he was acquitted and dowry articles were transferred to the father and the family of the deceased respectively, said that:

“In the instant case, the accused husband has been convicted by the trial Court under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of his wife. So keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in the cases supra also, theimpugned order is a legal and valid order.”