[XXXV of 1980]

Sections 2 & 4―The legislature has taken care to see that not only the taking or giving of dowry or abetment thereof before or at the time of marriage is made an offence but also the demand thereof after marriage.

For a conviction under section 4 of our Act, the word “dowry” need not be interpreted in terms of the definition of “dowry” in section 2. In that view of the matter we find that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980 do not suffer from any illegality. We sustain the conviction and sentence not on the reasoning given by the learned Judges of the High Court Division in 40 DLR 360 but on the ground that the word “dowry” in section 4 is not to be read in terms of the definition of the word “dowry” in section 2 but in its ordinary sense. Abul Basher Howlader vs State 46 DLR (AD) 169.

Sections 2 & 4—If dowry is demanded after the marriage then also the offence under section 4 will be attracted. Salam Mo/lick vs State 48 DLR 329.

Sections 2, 4 and 6—Whether demand of Tk. 10,000 by the husband as a condition of her being taken to the husband’s house is dowry. Expression ‘dowry’ occurring in section 2 of the Act— Meaning of—Expression “marriage” occurring in section 2—meaning of—Marriage is not only a ceremony but also creator of a status—Demanding money or valuable security in consideration for money amounts to dowry—Expression “in consideration for the marriage”—Meaning— Interpretation of legislative intent. Rezaul Karim vs Taslima Begum 40 DLR 360.