SURINDER NATH Vs. KIRAN BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED -petitioner has filed this revision against the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 4. 1. 1997, whereby his conviction under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short, the 'act') and sentence for six months' RI with a fine of Rs. 500.00; in default RI for one month awarded by the Trial Court are affirmed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that respondent-complainant Kiran Bala was married to accused-petitioner on 5. 5. 1986 at Nangal. All that time her father gave dowry articles worth Rs. 50,000.00, the details of which are attached with the complaint. All these articles were entrusted to the accused at the time of marriage. Accused being dissatisfied with the dowry articles, immediately after the marriage started maltreating the complainant-respondent. The complainant was in service in BBMB at Nangal township before her marriage. Accused started demanding her salary that she received even before her marriage. When her woeful story was told to her parents, they paid Rs. 8,000.00 to the accused-petitioner. Her previous salary was again demanded on 19. 2. 1987 by the accused threatening that in case she fails to abide by that demand, she has no place in the matrimonial home. Apprehending danger to her life, she started residing with her parents at Nangal. All attempts for reconciliation failed. Then she filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was granted on 4. 11. 1987. Despite several demands made by her, accused declined to return the dowry articles. She alongwith her father went to her matrimonial home demanding return of dowry articles, but accused refused to return anything. After obtaining permission from the District Magistrate, Ropar, she filed a complaint under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, which was dismissed on 6. 12. 1988 as she could not attend the Court because of her indisposition. Thereafter, she filed this complaint against the petitioner.

(3.) SCANNING the evidence minutely and finding the complainant's evidence cogent and reliable, the learned Magistrate held the accused-petitioner guilty under Section 6 of the said Act and convicted him as stated above.