Can ‘business motives’ serve as an excuse for demanding a dowry?

Will the 'Business Purpose' Ruling of the HC create a new excuse for the dowry seekers in Bangladesh?
On 3 August 2026, A single-judge bench of Justice Md. Salim in the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh overturned a two-year rigorous imprisonment and acquitted the appellant, Md. Rashel Uddin, in Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2024, Md. Rashel Uddin v. The State and Another. It was held that “demand for money from wife for business purposes does not constitute dowry.” The decision was made based on the 'lack of merit and the fabrication of the case'. Before the appeal, the cause of action arose in Cox’s Bazar, where Ismat Ara Begum filed a complaint in the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal No. 1, Cox’s Bazar, against her husband, Md. Rashel Uddin. The central allegation was that he asked from his wife TK. 1 lakh for his business and she was beaten due to the reason that she could not pay the amount.

In the appeal, the court’s reasoning was based on the statutory definition of dowry, whereby under section 2(ja) of Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain 2000, “Dowry” has been defined as money, goods or property demanded by the groom or persons directly related to him as a condition or consideration of marriage. In the present case, the demand was described as being for business purposes. The court, therefore, concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish that the demand constituted dowry within the meaning of the law. After careful reading of the above circumstances, it can be said that the court ruling is not a blanket exemption for business-related demands. However, the danger lies in how it will be explained afterwards.

The notion “business purpose” poses a significant risk as it is not a legal category in the dowry definition under the statute. Firstly, this label can be used to manufacture any financial demands, like capital for a shop, loan repayment, or an investment. The defense lawyers will likely to cite this ruling for the argument that a “business purpose” label end the inquiry on dowry. Secondly, the demand can also come after the marriage. Our statutory definition of dowry falls short of addressing that the demand can come not only at the time of the wedding, but it can also come after the wedding. Thirdly, the witness testimony will likely become weak. As the label will safeguard the seeker against all odds that he demanded money for business purposes only and that qualifies his demand outside the ambit of dowry definition. Finally, the prosecutor will have a harder job. They must now show an explicit link between the money and the marriage.

From a comparative perspective, Indian courts have faced a similar question about money demanded for other purposes. In Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra (2007), the Supreme Court held that a demand for money for farming expenses was not dowry because it lacked a link to the marriage. That decision has drawn widespread criticism. The narrow view taken in the case has been blatantly criticized by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court after 8 years. In Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015), it was held that “the narrow view taken in the Appasaheb case regarding seeking financial assistance does not constitute a demand for dowry is not a good law.”

Under the above circumstances, the possible dilemma of the future in such cases gives a wake-up call to rethink the statutory definition of dowry. Whereas the broader definition of dowry should explicitly include demands made before, at the time of, and after the wedding. The demand after marriage should be explained by the status of the relationship between husband-wife and the underlying pressure behind the demand.

The single-judge bench of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh was right to insist that a criminal conviction needs proof that a demand fits the statutory definition. But the existing narrow definition and fact-specific judgment can become a broad shield once it enters pleadings and headlines. If the parliament and the court do not clarify the nexus as to whether the demand has arisen from marriage (after the wedding also), then the “business purposes” label can become the next phase in a long line of justifications for dowry in the future.

Author: Lecturer, Department of Law, Sylhet International University.