SURINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FROM 'sati Pratha' to bride burning the Indian society has witnessed a drastic and dynamic cultural changes in family relations. During these long years to modern civilization, the human generations have travelled from inequality, oppression to equality and emancipation of women, Alas in this long period of development none has been able to control the bargain of dowry menace and the brides are facing the turmoil and ordeal in their matrimonial homes where they are compelled to perform sex doing cocktail. The importance of law and legal system in shaping the status of woman is increasingly evident in societies governed by written Constitution and rule of law. Here is statement of Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru (on Dowry Prohibition Bill, 1961, on 6th of May, 1961) deserves a place; "legislation can't by itself solve deep rooted social problem, One has to approach them in another way too, but legislation is necessary and essential. . . . "

(2.) AS the 'bride' the queen of house hold, the ARTHANGINI, the SAHDARMINI, the BHARYA and the equal partner with her husband has become worst target of social and economic exploitation in demands of dowry. Mahatma Gandhi once said : "there is no doubt that custom is heartless. The dowry system must go. Marriage must cease to be a matter of arrangement by parents for money". (Young India June 2, 1928)

(3.) SOME of the admitted facts which are not subject matter of controversy between the parties can well be relisted. The deceased Suman was married to the appellant Surinder Kumar on 13-10-1991. She lived in her matrimonial house till 30-10-1991 or 1 -11 -1991. There is no controversy that she had poured Kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze while she was living with her parents/fatehabad. This occurred on 13-3-1992. She died an unnatural death on 18-3-1992. It was not subject matter of controversy that there had been attempts made to pursuade the appellants to take back Suman but it did not succeed.