Definitions Many judicial experts consider the definitions as vague and subject to misuse.

[1 ] Dowry As per section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ... "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly (a) By one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or (b) By the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, , to eit her party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before ... or any time after the marriage ... in connection with the marri age of the said parties ...[2] Stridhan Stridhan is, generally speaking, what a woman can claim as her own property with in a marital household. It may include her jewelry (gifted either by her family or by her in-laws), gifts presented to her during the wedding or later, and the dowry articles given by her family. Gifts given by the parents of the bride are considered "stridhan", i.e. property of the woman, traditionally representing her share of her parent's wealth.[3] The Dowry Prohibition (DP) Act Introduced and taken up by then Indian law minister Ashoke Kumar Sen, this Act[4 ] prohibits the request, payment or acceptance of a dowry, "as consideration for the marriage". where "dowry" is defined as a gift demanded or given as a precon dition for a marriage. Gifts given without a precondition are not considered dow ry, and are legal. Asking or giving of dowry can be punished by an imprisonment of up to six months, or a fine of up to Rs. 15000 or the amount of dowry whichev er is higher and imprisonment up to 5 years. It replaced several pieces of antidowry legislation that had been enacted by various Indian states. Section 4 of the said Act states: 4. Penalty for demanding dowry.- If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term whi ch shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. Provided that the Court may, for a adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six m onths.[5] However, as per section 3 of the Act,[6] both the giver and the receiver are sou ght to be punished. 3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.- [(Note: Section 3 re-numbered as sub-sec tion (1) thereof by Act No.63 of 1984, sec.3) (1)] If any person, after the comm encement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [( Note: Subs. by Act 43 of 1986, Sec.3) five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, w hichever is more:] Provided that the Court may, for a adequate and special reasons to be recorded i

n he judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of a term of less than [(Note: Subs. by Act 43 of 1986, Sec.3) five years.] (2) [(Note: Ins. by Act 63 of 1984, sec.3) Nothing is sub section (1) shall appl y to, or in relation to, (a) Presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf). (b) Presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (withou t any demand having been made in that behalf). Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act. Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given. IPC Section 406 This section, for offences related to Criminal Breach of Trust, is usually appli ed in investigation of Stridhan recovery from the husband and his family. Offences under this section are bailable and cognizable. Section 406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.[7] IPC Section 304B This Section of the Indian Penal Code was inserted by a 1986 amendment. The wording of the lawstates: Section 304B. Dowry death (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage an d it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassm ent by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, an y demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation:-For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same me aning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ( 28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term w hich shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.[8] IPC Section 498A Section 498A was inserted into the Indian Penal Code in 1983 via an amendment. It reads:

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects s uch woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may ex tend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woma n to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health w hether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or va luable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her meet such demand.[9] This section is non-bailable, non-compoundable (i.e. it cannot be privately reso lved between the parties concerned) and cognizable. Prosecution for a non-compoundable offence can only be quashed by a High Court o f India under its powers under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code of India. Usually, cases under 498A are quashed by mutual agreement when the husband and w ife reconcile with each other, or agree to divorce by mutual consent. After registration of an FIR for a cognizable, non-bailable offence, the police in India can arrest any and all of the accused named in the complaint. Domestic Violence Act (2005/2006) Main article: Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 The above being criminal remedies, a civil remedy was brought into the picture i n 2005 (amended in 2006). This was called the "Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act". For the purpose of this act, Domestic Violence includes the demand for dowry: For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it (a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includ es causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or (b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to co erce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or (c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or(d) otherwise injure s or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.[10] This Act empowered the lower courts to issue "protection orders" on the complain t of a woman against her male relatives. The protection orders could include res training orders on the husband and others, monetary compensation, and residence orders. Though it is a Civil remedy, violation of protection orders result in Criminal p enalties (including imprisonment).

Criticism of Anti-Dowry Laws Criticism by Judiciary The Supreme Court of India and the various High Courts have noted the gross misu se of IPC 498A in various judgments: Supreme court declared 498a as "Legal Terrorism" while giving judgment in matter of Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors - Jul 19 2005 (Citation : JT 2005 (6) SC 266). Criticism outside India Several reports of the abuse of Section 498A have involved couples based outside India especially in the US & Canada. The United States Department of State has published the following travel warning: A number of US men who have come to India to marry Indian nationals have been ar rested and charged with crimes related to dowry extraction. Many of the charges stem from the US citizen s inability to provide an immigrant visa for his prospect ive spouse to travel immediately to the United States. [1] The courts sometimes order the US citizen to pay large sums of money to his spou se in exchange for the dismissal of charges. The courts normally confiscate the American s passport, and he must remain in India until the case has been settled.[ 2] It is stated in Travel Advisory by US, since the police may arrest anyone who is accused of committing a crime (even if the allegation is frivolous in nature), the Indian criminal justice system is often used to escalate personal disagreeme nts into criminal charges. This practice has been increasingly exploited by diss atisfied business partners, contractors, estranged spouses, or other persons wit h whom the US citizen has a disagreement, occasionally resulting in the jailing of US citizens pending resolution of their disputes. At the very least, such cir cumstances can delay the US citizen's timely departure from India, and may resul t in an unintended long-term stay in the country. Corruption in India, especiall y at local levels, is a concern, as evidenced by Transparency International s Corr uption Perception Index of 3.5, ranking India in 72nd place of the world s countri es.[11] In a well publicized case, Dr. Balamurali Ambati, who earned his MD at age 17, a nd his family were detained in India for over three years in a suit related to a lleged dowry demands by the family for his brother's wife Archana, which delayed Dr. Ambati's entry to the ophthalmology program for two years, leaving him to b egin his residency in 1998. All charges against him were dismissed in October 19 96 and all his family members were acquitted in June 1999.[12] During the course of the trial the Ambatis produced a tape in which the father o f Archana demanded US $500,000 to drop all the charges although the details of t his particular case are still debated in India.[citation needed] Criticism by Social Groups Criticism by Men's Rights movements According to the Men's Rights movement in India, the laws suffer from the follow ing shortcomings: Gender Bias: The laws do not recognize cruelty and domestic violence against men . The police in India almost never registers complaints of extortion or violence against men in a domestic relationship, whereas registering a complaint under 4

98A (where a woman is the aggrieved party) is widespread. Vague definitions of Dowry and Stridhan. Presumption of guilt. IPC 304B assumes that if the accidental death of a wife ha ppens within 7 years of marriage, it should be assumed to be murder, unless the husband can prove his innocence.[13] Similarly, the Dowry Prohibition Act (secti on 8-A) states that "Where any person is prosecuted for taking or abetting the t aking of any dowry under Sec. 3, or the demanding of dowry under Sec.4, the burd en of proving that he had not committed an offence under those sections shall be on him."[14] Duplication of existing laws: Laws already exist to deal with offences against i ntimidation, violence, extortion and murder. A "dowry death" can be considered a murder, and a demand for dowry can be considered extortion under existing laws. The additional laws, instead of reforming the police, mostly serve to shift the burden of proof onto the accused. A corrupt police force which often does no investigation before arresting innoce nt people. Human Rights violations: In most cases involving Non-Resident Indians, their pas sports are impounded and they are restricted from traveling outside the country. No penalties, in practice, for false complaints or for perjury. Police Circulars The Ministry of Home Affairs, as well as various State governments, have issued notifications and circulars which limit the arbitrary arrests made by Police dur ing investigation of dowry-related offences.[15] Demands for Amending the law The Malimath committee in 2003 proposed making amendments to this section althou gh such amendments were opposed by Women's groups.[citation needed] The Centre for Social Research India has released a research report [3] opposing amendments to section 498A. According to this report, in the studied cases ther e were no convictions based solely on section 498A. The report however states th at 6.5 percent of the studied cases were falsified. They also state that many pe ople believe the law has been abused by "educated and independent minded women." A police official asserted that in his district one-third of dowry murder cases were found totally false by the police. [4]. However, on December 17, 2003, the then Minister of State for Home Affairs, I.D. Swami said: There is no information available with the Government to come to the conclusion that many families in India are suffering due to exaggerated allegat ions of harassment and dowry cases made by women against their husbands and othe r family members involving them in criminal misappropriation and cruelty. [5] On 20 July 2005, Justices Arijit Pasayat and H.K. Seema of the Indian Supreme Co urt declared Section 498A to be constitutional."The object is to strike at the r oot of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used as a shield and not an assassin 's weapon. If [the] cry of "wolf" is made too often as a prank, assistance and p rotection may not be available when the actual wolf appears," the Bench said. [6 ]. In August 2010, the Supreme Court asked the Government of India to amend the Dow ry Laws to prevent their misuse.[16] Social Repercussions In urban India, the majority of families have inadequate knowledge regarding sec tion 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Even temporary imprisonment followed by acquittal leads to loss of social standi ng. Divorced men and women who are involved in litigation find it almost impossible to get married again.