G.M LODHA, J.— This is a defendants appeal in a suit which was dismissed by the trial Court, but decreed by the first appellate lower court. The dispute relates to a breach of contract about the marriage after engagement was performed by the defendants. The defendants performed engagement of Kailash Chandra, defendant No. 5, with Chandra Kala, daughter of Radha Mohan, the plaintiff. This betrothal ceremony was performed on 1st March, 1964 according to their customary rights. The plaintiff has spent an amount of Rs. 1,200/- for clothes, sweets, etc., on this betrothal ceremony in addition to Rs. 151/-, which was given in cash and, Rs. 300/- which was spent in Band and in other ceremonies. 2. The defendants who were dowry hungry, increased the demand of dowry and started to demand more and more dowry. The plaintiffs having failed to satisfy the defendants about their demand of more dowry, the defendants refused to perform the marriage and committed breach of the betrothal engagement agreement. 3. The plaintiff thus demanded the amount spent and amount given to them either in the form of the cloths, sweets, at the time of betrothal ceremony but the defendant refused to return it back. On 3rd May, 1964 the defendants agreed to pay Rs. 700/-as compensation for the breach of the contract of the marriage and also agreed to return the clothes. Even after this agreement, the defendants committed second breach by non-payment of the amount which resulted in the present suit. 4. The defendants, in their written statement, denied the agreement of the return as well as the performance of the betrothal ceremony. The case of the defendants was that at the most the plaintiffs spent Rs. 601/- on the occasion of engagement or betrothal ceremony. The defendants denied the second agreement to pay Rs. 700/- and return of the clothes also. 5. The case of the defendants was that at the most the plaintiffs spent Rs. 601/- on the occasion of engagement or betrothal ceremony. The defendants denied the second agreement to pay Rs. 700/- and return of the clothes also. 5. The following issues were framed:- 1- D;k izfroknhx.k lfu;fer fgUnw ifjokj ds lnL; gS\ 2- D;k oknhx.k dk lxkbZ esa 1651@& [kpkZ gqvk gks oknhx.k izfroknhx.k ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- D;k izfroknhx.k us oknhx.k ds dFkkuqlkj lxkbZ rksM+ nh vkSj ,ot esa oknhx.k dks 900@& udn vnk djus dk bdjkj fd;k\ 4- D;k dSykk pUnz ,oa pUnz dyk dh Lohd`fr cxSj ;g lxkbZ ugha VwV ldrh vkSj vHkh Hkh dk;e gS\ bldk okn ij D;k vlj gS\ 5- D;k nkos gktk esa & xksihyky vuko;d i{kdkj gS vkSj okn esa 10 fel tksbUMj vkWQ ikVhZt dk nks"k gS\ 6- D;k nkok gktk esa dh tks vko;d i{kdkj gS ikVhZ ugha cuk;k x;k vkSj nkos gktk esa uksu LikbUMj vkQ ikVhZt dk nks"k gS vkSj nkok esufVuscy ugha gS\ 7- lgk;rk\ 6. After recording of the evidence, the trial court dismissed the suit but the decision of the trial court was reversed by the first appellate court as mentioned above. 7. Mr. Maloo, the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that firstly, bride-groom was major at that time and, therefore, no agreement could be entered into without his consent. Secondly, it was argued that the amount of compensation allowed has not been proved and the agreement before the Panchayat is not admissible being violation of the provisions of the Arbitration Act. 8. Shri D.K. Soral, the learned counsel for the respondent has controverted the above submission of Shri Maloo, and pointed out that the first appellate court has, on a detailed and comprehensive discussion of the evidence, turned out a well reasoned judgment, holding that the betrothal took place and the amount was spent by the plaintiffs and the defendants agreed to re-pay it before the Panchayat, later on, backed out. So far as the application of Arbitration Act is concerned, Shri Soral, pointed out that no such objection was taken at any stage and, whether the Panchayat was done on the basis of the written application or not, is a question of fact, which cannot be agitated at the first time in the second appeal. So far as the application of Arbitration Act is concerned, Shri Soral, pointed out that no such objection was taken at any stage and, whether the Panchayat was done on the basis of the written application or not, is a question of fact, which cannot be agitated at the first time in the second appeal. Shri Soral pointed out that the fact, that the defendant demanded more and more dowry and failure of the plaintiff to satisfy the demand, the betrothal was cancelled by the defendants; is well proved on record by the evidence of five witnesses. In addition to the plaintiff. Gopilal (PW 2), Sitaram (PW 3) and Tejmal (PW 5) have been produced. Shri Soral pointed out that if the defendants own witness Jagannath (DW 3) had admitted that before the Panchayat, the plaintiffs agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 800/-and admission of the defendants witness is the best type of evidence. 9. Shir Soral also pointed out that all the questions raised by Shri Maloo are questions of fact and depend upon the appreciation of evidence. It was submitted that in second appeal it is not permissible to enter into re-appreciation of evidence under any garb or pretext, whatsoever. 10. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and have also gone through the record. The fact of betrothal was never seriously disputed and rather admitted by the defendants. The plaintiffs have been able to prove by the evidence of Gopilal (PW2), Sita Ram (PW3) & Tejmal (PW5) who have been relied upon by the First Appellate Court that the defendants continued to demand more and more dowry and it was only on account of inability of the plaintiffs to satisfy the demand of increased dowry and the defendant refused to perform the marriage and scraped the betrothal contract. It is further proved by them and admitted by Jagannath (DW3), that the dispute between the parties for repayment of the amount spent on the betrothal was settled before some important persons of the community & the plaintiffs, themselves, agreed to pay them Rs. 800/-. The defendants repudiated the betrothal agreement or Sagai, they were liable to pay back the amount spent on the Sagai, which include cash amount, amount spent in the clothes and the sweets etc. 11. 800/-. The defendants repudiated the betrothal agreement or Sagai, they were liable to pay back the amount spent on the Sagai, which include cash amount, amount spent in the clothes and the sweets etc. 11. I am not inclined to interfere in this second appeal specially when the amount allowed is only Rs. 800/- and that too was agreed by the defendants to be paid. It is not without significance that even in the written statement, the defendants, themselves, pleaded that the amount spent by the plaintiff on the ceremony of Sagai was Rs. 600/- only. This is also a limited demand. 12 I am not impressed by the submission of Shri Maloo that Kailash Chandra, the boy, was not agreeable with the betrothal and he was not consented party, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, either to the betrothal or to the breach of contract. As per the evidence produced in this case and the well known prevalent customs in the society, to which the party belonged, by and large, ceremony of engagements and marriage are always done by the parents. The consent of bride and bride-grooms in such cases, is always taken impliedly and expressly and, unless they openly disassociate with those functions and express their rejection of engagements or marriage, it is assumed that they are consenting parties. 13. On a careful discussion of the evidence in this case, these pleas of the defendants have been rejected and, rightly so. So far as the objection regarding the application of the Arbitration Act is concerned, I am inclined to accept the objection of Shri Soral to the above objection, that the defendants never took this objection at any stage of the case and it is mixed question of fact and law, whether any written application was made before the Panchayat or, any oral request was made and, if so, in what manner. These are interwove and in such a case, all are questions, which require adjudication only after the evidence is led on the factual aspect of the case The defendants cannot be allowed to take this objection in the second appeal for the first time here. I am, therefore, convinced that the judgment of the first appellate court suffers from no infirmity of law. 14. I am, therefore, convinced that the judgment of the first appellate court suffers from no infirmity of law. 14. Before parting with the case, it must be observed that the present one is a case, one of those glaring cases, where the social evil of "dowry demand" and breaking of the betrothal ceremony on account of the non-fulfillment of that demand has come in lime light. It is social evil" of serious magnitude, It is only very rare that the effected parties who became victim of this demand on account of their lack of financial resources, comes to the courts for compensation or damages. In the present case, compensation amount has only been claimed for the actual amount spent and no damages or compensation has been claimed as general damages for breach of contract by the defendants on account of the non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. In case, the general damages would have been claimed for the breach of the betrothal engagements by refusal performing the marriage on account of non payment of dowry, I would have had no hesitation in granting general damages for the mental agony and the social humiliation to the girl-bride and her parents. 15. Unfortunately social consciousness of the society has not yet arisen to that extent and therefore, most of the dowry demand effected parents and girls suffer silently and their tears go unnoticed. Sitting as a Judge in civil second appeal, I am precluded from making out a new case for such unfortunate girl and his parents, on account of fatters of my jurisdiction though I very much felt that I must award general damages also. That being so, the plaintiffs suit covers a very limited field and the dimensions are liable to be extended further in some other cases to consider, whether in a given case, a breach of engagement on account of non-payment of dowry demand, can result in a claim for general damages. Prima {facie, I am convinced that the girl and her parents are entitled to general damages in such a case and the civil courts should not hesitate to grant general damages also once it is proved that the marriage was not performed and the betrothal engagement was broken by the boy or his parents on account of non-payment of dowry. 16. 16. In Urmillas case (Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, (1) I had occasion to observe as under : "Dowry hungry vultures, having failed, in getting T.V. , Frieze, Scooter and coins of Rs. 25,000/- (price for selection as Tehsildar) started teasing, taunting, insulting and creating untolerable torture resulting in severe mental agony, apathy for such disgraceful beastly life, and nervous breakdown of an innocent, beautiful educated yet helpless newly married girl, who was thus forced to commit suicide by burning herself alive. Such is the tragic, pathetic hair raising, heart breaking, nerve cracking, conscious shocking and society rocking, one line prosecution story of Urmila the deceased, and crime of abatement of suicide by husband Ashok Kumar and his dowry starving family members. Yet the prayer is for extra-ordinary, exceptional judicial favour of bail without jail by the alleged dowry devils". "The resultant repeated attempts of suicide revolted against the social conscious and also makes its serious social crime of heinous nature. It is not a stray case, as several Urmilas are becoming victim of "dowry deaths homicide or suicide, as correctly pointed out by prosecution. This is crime against society, against womanhood and above all against poverty It deserves serious prompt attention by law makers, law interpreters and law enforcement machinery in addition to the social reformers. It is a slur on society and stigma on present generation. A social evil, taking away precious lives of newly married girls-rarely noticed deserves much more preventive stringent legislation." 17. The result is that this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.