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.

The demand of dowry was made on 9.11.90 and the complainant having been divorced on 20.12.90. the proceeding need be quashed as contended by the petitioners counsel.
Held: Dowry having been demanded during the continuance of the marriage the proceeding cannot be quashed as submitted by the learned Advocate on the plea of divorce subsequent to the demand of dowry.
Masud Hossain Vs. The State & Anr. 4 BLT (AD) -204

In view of the evidence, it is palpably clear that the appellant No. 1 demanded ten thousand taka as dowry from the complainant. There being no specific evidence that other accused appellants demanded dowry, they are entitled to be acquitted from the charge. Akramul Islam & Ors Vs. Deputy Comm. K. gonj & Ors. 3 BLT (AD)-88

"Dowry" property brought by woman to her husband at marriage or vice versa.
If a fresh demand for dowry is made after solemnization of marriage about which there was not prior agreement and which demand does not fall strictly within the definition of dowry in section 2, then the word "Dowry" in Section 4 is repugnant in the subject or context to the definition itself. "Dowry" in Section 4 has therefore to be understood in its ordinary meaning namely, property brought by woman to her husband at marriage or vice versa. It must be held therefore that in the Bangladesh Act the legislature has taken care to see that not only the taking or giving of dowry or abatement thereof before or at the time of marriage is made an offence but also the demand thereof after the marriage. Abul Basher Howlader Vs. The State& Ors 2 BLT (AD) -120

Offence of demanding dowry
Though the accused-husband divorced the complainant wife on 20.1.1996, the complaint was filed on 13.2.1996 i.e before expiry of 90 days when the marriage was still subsisting. On proof of the charge for demanding dowry the trial court convicted and sentenced the husband appellant which the High Court Division as well as the Appellate Division held perfectly justified. Shahidullah Kawser (Md.) Vs. Israt Zahan Popy and another 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 278.

The petition of complaint having been filed by the complainant within one year of the last demand of dowry it cannot be argued that the cognizance has been taken illegally violating section 7(b) of the Act. Nurun Nabi (Md) and others vs Fatema Khatun 2 BLC (AD) 171.