Currently in India, dowry often operates as a precondition for marriage rather than a matter of choice. Its transformation into a compulsory demand has had severe consequences for women, including harassment, domestic violence, and, in extreme cases, death. Recognizing the gravity of this social problem, the Indian state has criminalized dowry through statutory law and constitutional interpretation. Yet, despite legal prohibition, dowry continues to persist due to entrenched social norms, economic pressures, and weak enforcement mechanisms. 

Official crime data demonstrates that dowry-related offences remain widespread. Thousands of cases are registered every year under dowry-related provisions, and a significant number of women continue to die under suspicious circumstances linked to marriage-related harassment. These realities highlight the gap between the law on paper and its implementation in practice. 

The judiciary has repeatedly emphasized that dowry is incompatible with the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and personal liberty. In recent years, the Supreme Court has gone further to frame the eradication of dowry not merely as a matter of criminal justice, but as a constitutional obligation flowing from Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India. 

 

The primary legislation addressing dowry is the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Act prohibits both the giving and receiving of dowry and adopts a broad definition that covers any property or valuable security exchanged in connection with a marriage, whether before, during, or after its solemnization. 

The Act criminalizes: 

Giving or taking dowry 

Demanding dowry, directly or indirectly 

Aiding or abetting dowry transactions 

Offences under the Act attract stringent punishment, including mandatory imprisonment and fines. Over the years, amendments have strengthened these provisions to enhance deterrence. The law also distinguishes between dowry and legitimate marriage gifts by requiring the maintenance of gift lists, thereby protecting a woman’s stridhan while penalizing coercive demands. 

To support enforcement, the Act provides for the appointment of Dowry Prohibition Officers, whose role is to prevent dowry practices, collect evidence, and assist victims. However, the effectiveness of these officers has varied significantly across states. 

In addition to the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) contains specific provisions aimed at addressing cruelty and death arising from dowry demands. 

 Section 498A – Cruelty by Husband or Relatives 

Section 498A criminalizes cruelty inflicted upon a married woman by her husband or his relatives. Cruelty includes physical violence as well as mental harassment, particularly where such conduct is linked to unlawful demands for dowry. This provision is frequently invoked in cases involving sustained harassment and domestic abuse. 

 

Section 304B – Dowry Death 

Section 304B deals specifically with dowry deaths. Where a woman dies under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage, and evidence shows that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment over dowry shortly before her death, the law presumes the death to be a dowry death. The burden then shifts to the accused to rebut this presumption. Conviction under this section carries severe punishment, ranging from a minimum term of imprisonment to life imprisonment. 

To strengthen prosecution, the Indian Evidence Act incorporates a presumption clause that mandates courts to presume dowry death once foundational facts are established. This legal mechanism reflects legislative recognition of the difficulties faced by victims’ families in proving crimes that occur within the privacy of the matrimonial home. 

Under the proposed Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which seeks to replace the IPC, offences relating to dowry death and cruelty have been retained with revised numbering and clarified language. The draft legislation continues to treat dowry-related violence as a grave offence while introducing procedural safeguards intended to prevent arbitrary arrests. This reflects an attempt to balance victim protection with due process. 

 Indian courts have played a crucial role in shaping the enforcement of anti-dowry laws. Judicial decisions have clarified evidentiary standards, interpreted statutory presumptions, and addressed concerns regarding misuse. 

 Courts have consistently held that: 

Direct evidence of the act causing death is not always necessary in dowry-death cases. 

Continuous harassment linked to dowry demands can establish the required nexus. 

Once statutory conditions are satisfied, the burden of proof shifts to the accused. 

 

At the same time, the judiciary has acknowledged concerns regarding the misuse of dowry-related provisions, particularly Section 498A. In response, the Supreme Court has issued guidelines requiring police officers to follow procedural safeguards before making arrests and directing courts to scrutinize allegations carefully, especially when distant relatives are implicated without specific evidence. 

 Recent judgments have emphasized a balanced approach—ensuring that genuine victims receive protection while preventing the criminal justice system from being used as a tool for harassment or extortion. 

 

 

Despite a strong legal framework, the eradication of dowry faces serious obstacles. 

 Dowry continues to be socially normalized in many communities and is often disguised as customary gifting. Families may hesitate to report dowry harassment due to fear of social stigma, reputational harm, or pressure to preserve marital relationships. 

 

 A significant number of dowry-related incidents go unreported. Even when cases are registered, trials often take years to conclude, leading to low conviction rates. Prolonged litigation weakens deterrence and places immense emotional and financial strain on victims’ families. 

 

 The lack of adequately trained Dowry Prohibition Officers, limited police sensitization, and insufficient victim support services undermine effective enforcement. In many cases, victims encounter indifference or procedural hurdles at the initial reporting stage. 

 

 Claims of misuse of dowry laws have influenced public discourse and judicial policy. While false cases do occur, empirical evidence suggests that they constitute a minority. Overemphasis on misuse risks diluting the protective purpose of the law and discouraging genuine victims from seeking legal recourse. 

 

 In a landmark decision delivered in late 2025, the Supreme Court reinforced the constitutional dimension of dowry eradication. The Court held that dowry practices violate the foundational values of equality, non-discrimination, and dignity. Beyond deciding the individual case, the Court issued comprehensive directions aimed at systemic reform. 

 

These included: 

Mandatory appointment and training of Dowry Prohibition Officers 

Sensitization programs for police and judicial officers 

Prioritization of dowry-related cases to reduce pendency 

Integration of education on gender equality and dowry prohibition into school curricula 

Public awareness initiatives through legal services authorities 

 

The judgment marked a shift from viewing dowry solely as a criminal offence to recognizing it as a broader constitutional and societal issue. 

Although India has enacted comprehensive laws against dowry, the practice continues to inflict serious harm on women and their families. Legal prohibition alone has proven insufficient without effective enforcement and social transformation.

To strengthen the fight against dowry, the following measures are essential:

 • Robust enforcement of existing laws through trained officials

 • Speedy disposal of dowry-related cases

 • Expansion of victim support services, including shelters and legal aid

 • Public education campaigns targeting both men and women

 • Community-level initiatives to promote dowry-free marriages

The Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence rightly recognizes that dowry eradication requires collective effort involving the state, judiciary, civil society, and citizens. Only when legal accountability is combined with cultural change can dowry be eliminated in both law and practice.