The Supreme Court on Tuesday underscored the grave constitutional, criminal, and societal implications of dowry across religious communities and issued a slew of measures to curb the violence and deaths related to the social evil.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh set aside a verdict of the Allahabad High Court, which had acquitted an accused husband and his mother, despite findings by the trial court that they had immolated a young woman over unmet dowry demands. It allowed the criminal appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, restoring the trial court’s conviction in a case involving the death of a 20-year-old woman who was set ablaze for failing to satisfy demands for a coloured television, a motorcycle, and a cash payment of Rs 15,000.
The Apex Court held that the High Court had erred in reversing the conviction in disregard of established evidentiary principles governing dowry death under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
In a detailed judgment authored by Justice Karol, the top court of the country undertook a sociological and historical examination of the institution of dowry. It traced its origins to a voluntary practice of gifting property to daughters at the time of marriage, intended to ensure financial independence and security. Over time, however, the Bench noted that this practice had transformed into an institutionalised and coercive system, becoming an entrenched feature of marital negotiations and social hierarchy.
The verdict analysed the role of hypergamy—the practice of marrying women into families perceived as socially or economically superior—in entrenching dowry as a compulsory transfer.
The Apex Court observed that hypergamy, deeply rooted in caste, kinship, and patriarchal lineage structures, evolved into a mechanism through which families sought to preserve or enhance social status.
This phenomenon, particularly rigid among upper-caste groups, resulted in escalating dowry demands as inducements for alliances with higher-status families. Over successive historical periods, including the medieval and colonial eras, the linkage between dowry, wealth accumulation, land ownership, and political influence became increasingly pronounced, it noted.
The Court further observed that although dowry had been statutorily prohibited under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the practice persisted in altered forms, detached entirely from the welfare of women.
It identified the emergence of what it described as the “groom price” phenomenon, wherein dowry amounts were calibrated according to the groom’s education, income, profession, and social capital. This entrenched systemic gender discrimination by commodifying marriage and reinforcing the perception that women were intrinsically deficient without financial inducement, added the Bench.
In examining the impact of these practices on Muslim marriages, the Apex Court made significant observations on the erosion of the protective institution of mehr.
It noted that while dowry was doctrinally impermissible in Islamic law, mehr was a mandatory marital obligation payable by the groom to the bride at the time of nikah, intended to function as the woman’s exclusive property and a safeguard against economic vulnerability.
However, the Bench found that socio-cultural assimilation, economic pressures, and competitive marriage markets had facilitated the diffusion of dowry practices into Muslim communities, particularly in urban settings.
The judgment recorded that, in contemporary practice, dowry and mehr had come to coexist in a distorted and asymmetrical manner. While mehr continued to be formally stipulated in many marriages, it was often fixed at a nominal amount, whereas substantial financial transfers flowed from the bride’s family to the groom. This inversion hollowed out the substantive protection that mehr was designed to provide, effectively undermining women’s financial autonomy and security, it pointed out.
The top court of the country noted that this dual system imposed severe economic burdens on the bride’s family, frequently delaying or foreclosing matrimonial prospects, while simultaneously exposing women to heightened risks of harassment, domestic violence, and dowry-related deaths. The marginalisation of mehr further weakened women’s bargaining position and exacerbated vulnerability in cases of divorce or widowhood, it added.
Emphasising the constitutional dimensions of the issue, the Bench reiterated that the persistence of dowry was incompatible with the guarantees of equality, dignity, and life under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. It underscored that the eradication of dowry was not merely a social aspiration but an urgent constitutional imperative requiring sustained institutional, legal, and societal intervention.
The post Supreme Court issues guidelines to curb dowry-related violence appeared first on India Legal.