The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that a dowry demand made after marriage can still attract Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, even in the absence of a pre-marital dowry agreement. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 419]

Setting aside the appellate court's order acquitting a husband and his father, the bench of Justice Alok Awasthi held,

"It is a culture or tradition that a prior dowry contract is not a condition precedent for an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Act"... "Dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to the other side in marriage at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties". 

An appeal was filed by the wife challenging the judgment of the Appellate Court acquitting her husband and father-in-law of offences of cruelty (Section 498A of IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, after overturning the trial court's conviction order. 

According to the prosecution, the wife's parents had given cash, jewellery, and household articles of approximately ₹17 Lakhs at the time of marriage, while also bearing wedding expenses. However, upon reaching the matrimonial house, the wife discovered that the husband lied about his educational qualifications, as he claimed to have studied BBA in the USA, while in reality he had passed only grade 12th with no education abroad. 

Per the wife, the husband and his family started harassing her mentally and physically after marriage, claiming that they were expecting dowry worth ₹25 Lakhs and got only ₹17 lakhs. She was also kicked out of the house when the remaining dowry was not paid. Thus, the wife lodged a complaint on August 6, 2007 against the respondents. 

Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses, including the wife, her mother, her brother, her father, the investigating officer, and her Pune residence watchman, while the defence brought no witnesses. 

After appreciation of the record, the Trial Court found the husband and his father guilty under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them to RI for 01 year along with a fine of ₹1,000/- with default stipulation. 

Aggrieved, the husband and his father approached the Appellate Court, wherein the conviction was overturned, and the respondents were acquitted. 

Senior Advocate for the wife argued that the appellate court committed a grave error. It was argued that the Appellate Court based its order on the legal premise 'treating the absence of a fixed or pre-marriage agreement for demand of dowry as destructive of a subsequent demand made after marriage'. Senior Advocate argued that a person having a lot of money can demand more money, as 'greed has no limits'. 

Senior Advocate for the husband and his father argued that the prosecution failed to show any prior agreement of dowry between the parties. 

The court noted that Section 2 of the Act defines dowry as any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given, directly or indirectly, by one party to a marriage to the other, or by the parents or other persons, at, before or at any time after the marriage, in connection with the marriage.

The bench noted that a demand for dowry made after marriage also falls under the definition of dowry. The bench also noted that the said demand could be proved through oral testimony and that there was no rule requiring documentary evidence to establish a monetary demand. 

The court further noted that the wife's account of the demand was materially supported by the testimonies of all the witnesses. However, the court did acknowledge that some witnesses differed in some details and in the source of their knowledge. 

However, the bench held that a criminal prosecution does not require multiple witnesses to reproduce an incident verbatim. Minor variations in dates, wording, or recollection, particularly when events occurred years before witness testimonies, do not automatically render their evidence unreliable. 

The court noted that the appellant court's order was inconsistent regarding the alleged ₹17 lakhs dowry given at marriage. The bench further rejected the husband's contention that since the wife left Pune with her luggage, it can be presumed that she left her matrimonial house voluntarily. The court held

"If a person packs up and leaves his/her home after a quarrel, it does not mean he/she was not already being bullied or harassed before that quarrel". 

The bench thus concluded that the appellate court failed to identify an evidentiary defect sufficient to render the trial court's findings unsustainable. It held that the evidence established a consistent post-marriage demand, supported by the complainant's testimony and corroborated in material particulars by the other prosecution witnesses. 

Accordingly, the court set aside the appellate court's order of acquittal and restored the conviction of the husband under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the court also noted that criminal liability does not survive the death of the accused and therefore did not restore conviction against the husband's father. 

For Appellant: Senior Advocate Vivek Singh with Advocate Piyush Parashar

For State: Government Advocate Ambuj Patel

For Respondents: Senior Advocate Avinash Sirpurkar with Advocate Yogesh Kumar Gupta