Ernakulam, Kerala: A petition has been moved to the Kerala High Court challenging Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which penalises the giving or abetting of dowry. The court on Thursday sought a response from the state government to the public interest litigation (PIL) plea.

The PIL was filed by Tellmy Jolly, a law graduate and public policy professional. He stated that Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which penalizes both giving and taking of dowries, “disproportionately affects the victims,” adding that they are mostly pressurized into such transactions due to social and cultural pressure. The petitioner said the Act is disproportionate, noting that it is given under coercion, social pressure, or even threat.

Read Also: UP Woman Dies By Suicide, Police Probe Dowry Harassment Claims

“In such circumstances, penalizing the giving of dowries disregards the unequal bargaining power between the parties and fails to take into account the socio-cultural realities in which these transactions occur,” Bar and Bench quoted the petitioner. Penalisation of dowry givers is unconstitutional, the petitioner argued.

The plea also demanded efficient enforcement of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 and the Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1985 in the State. However, the government leader questioned the maintainability of the PIL itself, arguing that only a person directly affected by the penal provision should be allowed to challenge it.

Read Also: Athulya’s Death In Sharjah: Husband Booked For Murder, Described ‘Extreme Psycho’

The Petition stated that a party or a parent or relative can not file a complaint in case of a dowry transaction taking place without incriminating themselves, adding that it is therefore submitted that Section 3  ought to be read down to penalise only the taking of dowry, in line with the object and purpose of the Act, which is to protect and not punish  victims of dowry harassment.

The Petitioner also underlined Kerala’s poor implementation of the 2004 rules, citing the lack of awareness campaigns addressing dowry prohibition, complaint redressal mechanisms or mandatory maintenance of records pertaining to dowry cases.