Hyderabad: Advocates practising in the Hyderabad High Court are in favour of the Supreme Court’s suggestion that the Centre work out modalities to record the details of expenses incurred on a marriage to be jointly furnished to the marriage officer.
They are of the opinion that this move would help avoid disputes over allegations of dowry and also in claiming maintenance during matrimonial disputes.
Advocate Rachna Waddepalli said, “The practical benefits of this proposal are many. Once the expenditure incurred on a marriage is jointly furnished to the marriage officer, future disputes and allegations about the demand for dowry become factually ascertainable.”
She said that “The husband and his relatives can also largely benefit by it as it will help to thwart future false claims by the wife. It may act like a ‘pre-nup’ (pre-nuptial agreement) which is so popular in the west but impractical for our Indian cultural mindset.”
She felt that “the suggestion so made can also curb ostentatious weddings besides helping to settle marriage disputes in a civilised manner.”
Ms Aruna Koppaka, president of AP Woman Lawyers Federation, said the Union government has prepared a Bill for making registration of marriages compulsory to save women from unnecessary harassment in matrimonial and maintenance cases, and the registration of marriage will provide evidentiary value in matters of custody of children, right of children born in wedlock and the age of the married persons.
The Union government can now incorporate the suggestion of the Supreme Court in this Bill, she added.
Advocate B. Rachna Re-ddy said, “When two equal partners meet together to lead a happy married life, dowry or lavish expenditure to glorify, or some pe-ople may call it ‘celebrate’, that union, has become an illegal but widely accepted social norm.”
Ms Rachna Reddy said that “though the law prohibits dowry, it is a fact that the practice is widely prevalent. When marriage is viewed as a kind of social status symbol putting any restriction on it would amount to violation of Article 19(1)(a) (Expression) 21 (liberty) of the Constitution.”
She opined that “accounting for wedding expenditure would be similar to accounting for election expenditure by politicians.” She suggested checks to ensure that the amount listed as spend is actually spent.
She felt that “If the expenditure is true and a percentage of it actually deposited then it would be a good practice to have clarity in litigation, but not otherwise.”
Maintaining that depositing part of the dowry in a woman’s name is a very good idea, she said “but in a patriarchal society where the wife’s salary, pay cheque, or earnings and assets are easily accessed by the husband, obtaining the same is not difficult.”
