Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Penalty for Demanding Dowry
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 makes a direct or indirect demand for dowry punishable. The provision applies where a person demands dowry from the parents, other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom.
Text and effect of Section 4
A person who directly or indirectly demands dowry from the parents, other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom is punishable with imprisonment for not less than six months, which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to Rs. 10,000.
The proviso permits the Court, for adequate and special reasons stated in the judgment, to impose imprisonment for a term shorter than six months.
The present Section 4 was substituted by Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 63 of 1984), with effect from 2 October 1985. The current central text continues to prescribe the punishment stated above.
What is "dowry" under Section 2?
Section 4 must be read with the definition of "dowry" in Section 2 of the Act. In substance, dowry means property or valuable security given or agreed to be given, directly or indirectly, by one party to a marriage to the other, or by the parents of either party or any other person to either party or any other person, at, before or any time after the marriage, where it is connected with the marriage. Dower or mahr in cases governed by Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) is excluded from the statutory definition.
The phrase "in connection with the marriage" is important. Section 4 is directed at a demand for property or valuable security having the required connection with the marriage; it is not drafted as a general provision covering every financial dispute between spouses or their families.
Essential features of an offence under Section 4
| Requirement | Legal significance |
|---|---|
| A demand | The provision expressly covers a demand made directly or indirectly. |
| Person from whom demand is made | The statutory text refers to the parents, other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom. |
| Subject of demand | The demand must be for "dowry" as defined by Section 2 of the Act. |
| Punishment | Imprisonment of at least six months and up to two years, plus fine up to Rs. 10,000, subject to the proviso permitting a shorter sentence for adequate and special reasons recorded in the judgment. |
Related procedural provisions
Section 8 - Investigation, bail and compounding
Section 8 provides that offences under the Act are treated as cognizable for the purposes specified in that section, including investigation, while preserving the statutory restriction concerning arrest without warrant or an order of a Magistrate. Every offence under the Act is non-bailable and non-compoundable under Section 8(2).
Section 8A - Burden of proof in certain cases
Section 8A specifically covers a prosecution for demanding dowry under Section 4. It states that where a person is prosecuted for an offence under Section 4, the burden of proving that the person had not committed the offence is on that person. The provision should be read together with the other applicable rules of criminal procedure and evidence.
Section 4 and marriage presents
A voluntary marriage present is not automatically the same as a dowry demand. The Act separately regulates presents in Section 3(2), including conditions relating to the absence of a demand, maintenance of the prescribed list and, for certain presents made by or on behalf of the bride, their customary nature and value relative to the giver's financial status. The Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 prescribe requirements for maintaining such lists.
Official legal source
For the authoritative central text and amendment notes, refer to the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on India Code. The Act is administered by the Ministry of Women and Child Development.
This page is a general legal information resource. The exact application of the law depends on the facts, applicable State amendments and current judicial interpretation.