Ranchi, Jan 8: “A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry” — Supreme Court of India.

The recent ruling by Justices G.P. Mathur and R.V. Raveendran of the Supreme Court in the Appasaheb case has managed to change the face of the Indian Dowry Act of 1961.

Appasaheb of Sanjkheda village was convicted for the death of his wife, Bhimabai, who consumed poison after seven years of marriage.

A case was registered against Appasaheb and his mother under Sections 498a (cruelty against woman for dowry), 304-b (dowry death) read with 34 (common intention) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the IPC.

He was, however, set free of all charges with the historical statement that differentiates between “dowry” and “necessity”.

This judgment has set off reactions in the city. Malancha Ghosh, a retired professor of zoology and president of Mahila Utpidan Virodhi Evam Vikas Samiti , strongly condemned the judgment today.

“We, too, need to ask ourselves that if Appasaheb, the accused, had only ‘asked’ for help then why was her reaction so severe? Probably she was forced to such an extent that it hurt her self-esteem,” she added.

“If you don’t call this act of asking for money from a girl’s parents dowry, then what do you understand by dowry?” said Ratna Banerjee, professor of history, Nirmala College before adding that it would be unfair to comment without knowing all the details of the case.

The mood is clear. Many feel that this decision can be termed “absurd”.

Kiran, personal manager of CCL added: “The judgment is against a woman’s sense of dignity.”