A single judge bench of Madras High Court relied on the Supreme Court decision here.
From Para 12,
Manjunath Eshwar Vs State of TN on 16 Apr 2013
12. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner places much reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2010 (1) MWN (Cr.) 39 (SC) [State of U.P. vs. Santosh Kumar] wherein Their Lordships have held as follows :-
40. Section 4 of the Dowry Act deals with penalty for demanding dowry, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be. The object of Section 4 is to discourage the very demand for property or valuable security as consideration for a
marriage between the parties thereto. Section 4 prohibits the demand for ‘giving’ property or valuable security which demand, if satisfied, would constitute an offence under Section 3 read with Section 2 of the Act.
41. Thus, the ambit and scope of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act is different from the ambit and scope of Section 498-A, IPC.