Post-Marriage Dowry Demand Punishable, Says MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Indore bench has held that a dowry demand made after marriage is an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, even if no dowry was agreed before the wedding. Justice Alok Awasthi said in an order reported on 21 October 2026 that the demand can be proved through a wife’s oral evidence, and restored a husband’s conviction that a lower appellate court had set aside.
Spoken Evidence Can Be Enough
The court said a prior dowry contract is “not a condition precedent for an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Act”. It also held that a monetary demand made after the wedding can be proved by witness testimony, with no document needed, and that small differences between witnesses’ accounts do not make their evidence unreliable. In practice, a complaint cannot be thrown out only because the two families never discussed dowry before the marriage.
A Complaint Filed in 2007
In the case, titled DB v State of MP (CRA-3639-2019), the wife’s parents allegedly gave cash, jewellery and household articles worth about ₹17 lakh and paid the wedding expenses. She said her husband falsely claimed a BBA degree from the USA, that she and her husband’s family demanded ₹25 lakh in total, and that she was thrown out of the house when the balance was not paid. She filed her complaint on 6 August 2007.
The trial court convicted the husband and his father under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced each to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000. The appellate court acquitted both. The prosecution had examined nine witnesses; the defence examined none. The wife then appealed to the High Court.
Father’s Conviction Not Restored
The High Court found no defect in the evidence that would undermine the trial court’s findings and restored the husband’s conviction under both provisions. It did not restore the father’s conviction, because criminal liability does not survive the death of an accused. The portions of the order reported so far do not say whether the one-year sentence stands.
For other recent High Court rulings, see the Patna High Court’s remarks on the NDPS Act and the Daily Updates page.
Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court order in CRA-3639-2019 (PDF). Also based on reporting by LiveLaw.
Image: IPB.
