Dowry and mehr now co-exist in Muslim marriages, the Court lamented
The Supreme Court on December 15 issued a set of general directions aimed at curbing the social menace of dowry deaths. The Court also set aside a judgment of the Allahabad High Court that had acquitted the husband and his mother, despite the Trial Court’s finding that they had set a 20-year-old woman on fire for failing to meet their demands for a colour television, a motorcycle, and ₹15,000.
The order was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N.K. Singh. In the judgment authored by Justice Karol, the Court traced the origins of dowry, noting that it initially evolved as a voluntary practice of gifting to a daughter at the time of marriage, intended for her personal use and financial security.
The judgment further observed that dowry gradually transformed into an “institutionalised practice,” eventually becoming a key component of hypergamy—the custom of marrying into a socially or caste-higher family to preserve lineage. It also noted that, owing to the cross-pollination of cultural practices, the practice of dowry has extended into the Muslim community as well, thereby diluting the protective role traditionally served by mehr.
“This practice of marrying ‘higher up’ traces its origins to caste and kinship along with, to use a colloquial term, the ‘baggage of the samaj’ that comes with it. Since lineage is traced through the patriarchal line, the desire to marry daughters into equal or higher-status families ensured that their offspring retained or enhanced the family’s standing. Hypergamy thus became both a social strategy and a religiously sanctioned norm.”
Justice Karol noted that the practice was followed with particular rigidity among upper castes, where daughters were “married up” into families of higher ritual or political status, often requiring substantial dowries as inducements. Over time, this entrenched the practice as a pervasive cultural norm within Hindu communities.
“Over time, hypergamy was not just about varna but also about wealth, landholding, and political influence. Medieval royal families practiced hypergamy to forge alliances, and landed elites followed suit to consolidate power. By the early modern and colonial periods, hypergamy had become a widespread cultural pattern across many Hindu communities, entrenching the link between dowry and upward mobility.”
The Groom Price Theory and Institutionalised Bias Against Women
He observed that despite the legal prohibition on dowry, the practice persists even today and bears no relation to the welfare of the woman. It has now come to be described as the “groom price theory,” wherein the quantum of dowry is dictated by attributes of the groom—such as his social standing, educational qualifications, and earning potential—thereby resulting in a systemic bias against women.
“What all of this translates to, is a systemic bias against women – pervasive across all sections of society – undervaluing them grossly. The amount of dowry the woman brings into the marital home directly corresponds to the value of the groom, which the woman, just as herself, is condemned to be unable to meet, or is otherwise unworthy, sans the dower.”
Mehr has now become another name for dowry
Justice Karol observed that although dowry is impermissible in the Muslim community, mehr is a mandatory payment that the groom is required to give the bride at the time of nikah. He clarified that mehr is the exclusive property of the wife and cannot be appropriated by the husband or his family.
The judgment further noted that the cross-interaction of cultural, economic, and institutional influences has nevertheless led to the prevalence of dowry practices within the Muslim community as well.
“Historically, dowry was most closely associated with Hindu caste society, but over a time it diffused into Muslim practices through processes of cultural assimilation, social emulation, and inter-community influence. Scholarly undertakings trace how Muslim families, particularly in urban centers, began adopting dowry as a status marker and as part of competitive marriage negotiations. At the same time, marriage market pressures – including imbalances in sex ratios, rising educational aspirations, and competition for higher-status grooms – encouraged families to provide substantial dowry payments.”
Dowry and mehr now coexist
Justice Karol observed that mehr and dowry now coexist in a complex manner, a development that has effectively hollowed out the very concept of mehr and eroded the protection it was intended to provide.
“As a result, mehr and dowry have come to coexist in complex ways. In many Muslim marriages in India, mehr continues to be stipulated, but often only in nominal terms. The real financial transfers flow from the bride’s family to the groom, effectively hollowing out the protective function of mehr. This undermines the original Islamic intention of empowering women through property ownership, as the dowry frequently ends up under the control of the husband or his family”
He observed that when dowry supplants or overshadows mehr, women are deprived of a crucial bargaining safeguard and are exposed to heightened economic vulnerability.
“Scholars note that this dual system – nominal mehr alongside substantial dowry – illustrates how religious norms have been reshaped by social and economic forces. The consequences of this shift are serious. Dowry places a heavy financial burden on the bride’s family, sometimes delaying or preventing daughters’ marriages. It has also been linked to harassment, domestic violence, and even dowry deaths – problems that affect not only the Muslim households but cut across all religions. By contrast, the neglect of mehr erodes women’s financial security, leaving them less protected in cases of divorce or widowhood.”
The Court underscored that eliminating the practice of dowry is an urgent constitutional mandate and a pressing social imperative.