KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Friday directed the state government to inform the court about the steps taken by it from 2004 onwards for the effective implementation of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Kerala. The court also directed to explain the reason for the non-appointment of Regional Dowry Prohibition Officers as per the Kerala Dowry Prohibition Rules 2004.
The court observed that the implementation of the Act and the rules is a matter, to be seriously looked into.
The court issued the interim order on a petition filed by educationalist Indira Rajan, Perumbavoor, Ernakulam seeking a direction to implement the Act and the Rules framed to prohibit the dowry system in its letter and spirit so as to eradicate the menace from the society. The petitioner alleged that even though dowry deaths are reported constantly, no person is holding the post of the Officer in the state from 2017 onwards.
According to the petitioner, dowry is a social stigma in society causing unimaginable torture and crime towards women. This evil has taken the lives of numerous innocent women from all strata of society, whether poor, middle class, or wealthy. The lackadaisical attitude of the time to time government in power and its machinery is the root cause for this misfortune being faced by the helpless women. No positive, effective, and creative steps have been taken to prevent the menace or to bring the culprits who commit the offence.
The petitioner submitted that implementation of rule 2 of Rules 1985 is practically impossible. If any bride insists to her husband or his family to furnish a signed list of presents given at the time of marriage, that itself will lead to the break-up of the marital relationship and she will be put to unbearable mental and physical torturing. Instead of asking the bride to get a signed list of presents given at the time of marriage, the framers of Rules ought to have mandated to furnish a list of presents given to the bride at the time of marriage, before the Dowry Prohibition Officer or Registrar of Marriage, before the registration of marriage.
The petitioner also sought a directive to observe the Anti-Dowry Prohibition Day in a meaningful manner rather than a mere means for siphoning off money from the public exchequer by appointing celebrities as ambassadors of Anti-Dowry Prohibition Day for namesake.