Nice judgment from Telangana High Court which held as follows:
M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020
38. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that by virtue of amendment vide Act No.63 of 1984 w.e.f. 02.10.1985, the words “in connection with the marriage of the said parties” are added and, therefore, the alleged demand of dowry should be in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Section 4 of the Act, 1961 also deals with “penalty for demanding dowry’. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no demand of dowry in connection with the marriage of the parties viz., deceased and accused No.1.
39. As discussed supra, the entire complaint lodged by PW.1 against the accused is that the accused have demanded additional dowry, more particularly, the dowry, which was given to the second daughter of PW.1 at the time of her marriage in the year 1998 i.e., six years after the marriage of the deceased. Even the said alleged demand of additional dowry at the time of marriage of second daughter of PW.1 is also not proved with cogent evidence.
40. It is relevant to note that the definition of ‘dowry’ under Section 2 of the Act, 1961 mere demand thereof would not be an offence under Section 4 of the Act, 1961. It should either be given or agreed to be given at or before or after the marriage in connection with the marriage. Although in common parlance one very often uses the term “dowry demand” in the cases where the husband or his relations demand valuable security from the parents and other relations of the wife after the marriage, yet this will not amount to demand for dowry under the Act, 1961 in view of the definition of dowry contained in Section 2 of the Act, 1961.
Other Source links: