Hubby, Father-In-Law Acquitted In Dowry Death Case As Court Finds No Proof Of Dowry Demand

Hubby, Father-In-Law Acquitted In Dowry Death Case As Court Finds No Proof Of Dowry Demand

Advocates Deepak Verma and Bhupendra Malviya, who appeared on behalf of the accused, said, "The court observed that demand for dowry and demand for business are two different things. Money demanded for business should not be treated as a dowry demand. The prosecution failed to establish a dowry demand."

Staff ReporterUpdated: Sunday, May 31, 2026, 09:19 PM IST
Hubby, Father-In-Law Acquitted In Dowry Death Case As Court Finds No Proof Of Dowry Demand
Hubby, Father-In-Law Acquitted In Dowry Death Case As Court Finds No Proof Of Dowry Demand | Representative image

Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh): District Court, Sehore, has acquitted a man and his father in a case of dowry death on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish it was a dowry demand.

As per the court order, the court made the observation that there is a difference between a dowry demand and money demanded for business. Secondly, the accused took a loan and gave it to the deceased's sister for financial support.

As per the order, Priti Malviya died less than seven years of her marriage. She died on October 15, 2024 after her marriage to Kanhaiyalal on May 12, 2022.

Balram Malviya and Kanhaiyalal Malviya were arrested in the dowry death case. The post-mortem report suspected poison. The RFSL report showed the presence of aluminium phosphide (insecticide). No injuries were found on private parts or other parts of the body.

Priti's parents had alleged that Kanhaiyalal demanded Rs 50,000 and tortured her. Accused Kanhaiyalal, a mechanical engineer, earns over Rs 2 lakh annually.

Priti's mother Komal, told court, "Kanhaiyalal had taken a loan in his name and gave it to Shivani, the sister of Priti. Kanhaiyalal used to take Priti to her parental home on festivals and other rituals and even used to stay there. Even Kanhaiyalal footed the hospital bills during delivery."

Advocates Deepak Verma and Bhupendra Malviya, who appeared on behalf of the accused, said, "The court made the observation that demand for dowry and demand for business are two different things.

Money demanded for business should not be treated as a dowry demand. The prosecution failed to establish a dowry demand."