INTRODUCTION
On her wedding day, a young bride was showered with bundles of gifts and cash that her family had gathered, a bittersweet image of the practice of dowry that still affects millions of families in India. Although the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961[1] made giving or taking dowry an illegal act, the custom remains deeply rooted within the societal functions of the country. A large survey stated that dowry was understood as the transfer from the bride’s side of the family to the groom’s side during the marriage and was paid in 95% of weddings that had occurred between 1960 and 2008[2]. The amounts can be shocking at times; in most cases, they might be equivalent to several years of the bride’s family income, and to date, the burden remains heavily on the women. This blog traces the historical evolution of dowry alongside the legal reforms as well as case laws. It also explores economic incentives and the review of feminist critiques that throw light on its continuing grip over Indian society.
HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF DOWRY
The roots of dowry in South Asia trace back centuries, though its meaning has changed over time with the evolution of society. In ancient India, gifts that were given around the marriage were often part of streedhan or kanyadan; these two concepts were meant as a form of inheritance for the bride[3]. However, in today’s world, patriarchal interpretations, such as those mentioned in the Manusmriti, have subordinated women’s rights to property. Around the medieval period, the practice was mainly based on the concept of Vara Dakshina, which meant the price paid to the groom; this reinforced the male dominance in the marital transactions.
The colonial period tremendously reshaped dowry. The British land and inheritance laws curtailed the property rights of women, turning the voluntary gifts into obligatory payments. Veena Oldenburg argued that British codification of Hindu law was mainly based upon the upper caste inheritance patterns, which had institutionalised dowry as a form of economic exchange[4]. By the late 19th century, this practice became a central financial negotiation during marriage, especially among the landed elites.
By the post-independence era, dowry had nearly become universal. A tradition that was once a symbolic gesture had now become a compulsory transaction, a sign of social status for families and a source of suffering for many women.
LEGAL REFORMS AND CASE LAW
The Indian state, after independence, undertook a series of reforms in order to combat dowry. The Dowry Prohibition Act 1961[5] criminalised the exchange of dowry, prescribing imprisonment of at least five years. However, weak enforcement and the intricacies of proving coercion meant the practice persisted. The definition, according to the law, excluded voluntary gifts, creating interpretive challenges even today.
The Parliament, in response to the rising violence, introduced Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 1983, which criminalised cruelty by husbands or their relatives. It was followed by Section 304B in 1986, which defined dowry death. If a woman dies within seven years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances and there is evidence of dowry-related harassment, courts presume guilt. This significantly expanded state intervention in marital disputes.
Judicial activism has also played a significant role in interpreting dowry laws. In In Re: Enforcement and Implementation of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961[6]. The Supreme Court explained how a once symbolic gift degenerated into a coercive economic exchange; it observed that “acceptance of the women as a wife depended on what the parents would pay as dowry.” Stronger enforcement was required to be reinforced, observing this social degeneration.
In Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana[7], the court held that the term dowry wasn’t just limited to pre-marital arrangements but had extended to include demands made after marriage, broadening the scope of Section 304B IPC. Similarly, in the case of Appasaheb v State of Maharashtra[8], the court noted that any request made “in connection with marriage” qualifies for dowry; for example, before the marriage, and after the marriage, there would also be a request for dowry. The conclusions of the court established that the timing of a dowry request is not important if it can be shown that it is in connection with the marriage.
In Kamesh Panjiyar v State of Bihar[9], the Supreme Court ruled that when identified by the prosecution, if a victim dies within 7 years of marriage and there is a case of dowry harassment, then if the dowry harassment is real, a presumption of guilt under Section 304B must be inferred unless the defence can establish otherwise. The judgment supported a victim trajectory and elevated standards of proof within the context of dowry death trials. In Satvir Singh v State of Punjab[10], the Court began to address the need for cruelty linked to a demand for dowry for culpability under the dowry death provisions. The principles in the judgement are fresher to engaging first hand in cruelty, reinforced, for instance, the Court prescribed a need to identify “a proximate and live link” between the cruelty visited upon the woman and her death as a necessary means for Courts to differentiate authentic claims from false evidence.
The Court would caution in Vijay Pal Singh v State of Uttarakhand[11], against any casual demands or arguable disputes characterised as a demand for dowry within the standard set under Section 304B, endorsing the anti-dowry balance against the potential misuse of the law, but equally asserting the necessity to protect women from institutionalised harm under the purport of cruelty and or its association with systems of dowry. Ultimately, these judgments expose the courts’ struggle to engage in the delicate balance of harsh punishment while also maintaining the principles of evidentiary fairness. In so doing, they are also illustrating the difficulty inherent in trying to distinguish traditional gift exchange between families from coercive dowry demands.
CONCLUSION
The dowry story in India is a story of law, economics, and gender politics. From colonial inheritance codes and changing notions of value, dowry continues to exist, being reorganised and restructured within new forms of social hierarchy. Legislative initiatives, such as the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, and the Indian Penal Code Sections of 304B and 498A, have labelled the dowry as a criminal institution. However, enforcement gaps and social complicity all contribute to the persistence of dowry. Judicial inquiries into dowry have made strides to inscribe or recognise progressive values in the institution of marriage, but often expose the difficulties of proving coercion, and at times protecting “gifts.”
In the background of all of these interactions, dowry persists because it remains economically rationalised within the continued patriarchal frameworks of society. Feminist thought reminds us of the great extent of reform necessary to undo the systems of inequality that have rationalised the institution of dowry. Until then, dowries will continue to exemplify and haunt the politics of marriage in India.
Author(s) Name: Rudrali Deshpande (New Law College, BVDU, Pune)
References:
[1] Dowry Prohibition Act 1961
[2] S Anukriti, T Chakravarty and N Das, ‘The Dowry System in Rural India: An Empirical Investigation’ (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 9976, 2022) <https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/099262202032220622/p1765730a9fdbb0b009b4046a3f17dfd9b1> accessed 10 November 2025
[3] Manusmriti, trans G Bühler (Sacred Books of the East Series vol 25, Oxford University Press 1886) ch 9, v 45
[4] Veena Oldenburg, Dowry Murder: The Imperial Origins of a Cultural Crime (Oxford University Press 2002)
[5] Dowry Prohibition Act 1961
[6] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 304B, s 498A
[7] In re Enforcement and Implementation of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (2005) Writ Petition (Civil) 499 (SC)
[8] Appasaheb v State of Maharashtra AIR 2007 SC 763
[9] Kamesh Panjiyar v State of Bihar (2005) 2 SCC 388
[10] Satvir Singh v State of Punjab (2001) 8 SCC 633
[11] Vijay Pal Singh v State of Uttarakhand (2014) 15 SCC 163
