<div>The Madras High Court today ruled that money demanded by a man from his in-laws for doing business does not come under the category of 'dowry'.<br /><br />Disposing of a petition filed by the man's family against a complaint of dowry harassment, Justice C T Selvam of the Madurai bench said money demanded by a person from his wife and in-laws for investing in business cannot be construed as dowry demand and tried under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.<br /><br />He said it was necessary for a complainant to prove that money was demanded only as dowry.<br /><br />The Judge accepted the petitioner's submission that money had been demanded for conduct of business, but that the same was not demanded as dowry.<br /><br />Such a demand for money for conduct of business would attract IPC Section 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), the judge said and ordered that the petitioners be prosecuted under this provision, apart from IPC Sec. 506(I) (criminal intimidation).<br /><br />The Judge exonerated the complainant's father-in-law, saying he was in no way connected with the case.<br /><br />He directed the Judicial Magistrate in Tiruchirapalli, where the case was filed in December last year, to prosecute the victim's husband, mother-in-law and two sisters-in-law alone.</div>
<div>The Madras High Court today ruled that money demanded by a man from his in-laws for doing business does not come under the category of 'dowry'.<br /><br />Disposing of a petition filed by the man's family against a complaint of dowry harassment, Justice C T Selvam of the Madurai bench said money demanded by a person from his wife and in-laws for investing in business cannot be construed as dowry demand and tried under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.<br /><br />He said it was necessary for a complainant to prove that money was demanded only as dowry.<br /><br />The Judge accepted the petitioner's submission that money had been demanded for conduct of business, but that the same was not demanded as dowry.<br /><br />Such a demand for money for conduct of business would attract IPC Section 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), the judge said and ordered that the petitioners be prosecuted under this provision, apart from IPC Sec. 506(I) (criminal intimidation).<br /><br />The Judge exonerated the complainant's father-in-law, saying he was in no way connected with the case.<br /><br />He directed the Judicial Magistrate in Tiruchirapalli, where the case was filed in December last year, to prosecute the victim's husband, mother-in-law and two sisters-in-law alone.</div>