Dowry and mehr now co-exist in Muslim marriages, the Court lamented
On December 15, the Supreme Court issued a set of general directions aimed at tackling the persistent social menace of dowry deaths. It also set aside a judgment of the Allahabad High Court that had acquitted a husband and his mother, despite the Trial Court’s conclusion that they had burned a 20-year-old woman to death for failing to meet their demands for a colour television, a motorcycle and ₹15,000.
The ruling was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N.K. Singh. Writing the judgment, Justice Karol traced the historical origins of dowry, noting that it initially emerged as a voluntary transfer of property to a daughter at the time of marriage, intended for her exclusive use and economic security.
The Court observed that with the passage of time, dowry became an “institutionalised” practice and came to be intertwined with hypergamy—the practice of marrying into a socially or caste-superior family to preserve lineage. It further noted that cultural cross-pollination has facilitated the spread of dowry into the Muslim community, consequently eroding 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 most stringently imposed among upper castes, where daughters were “married up” into families of higher ritual or political status, often requiring substantial dowries as incentives. With time, this entrenched dowry as a deeply rooted cultural norm within Hindu society.
“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 being legally banned, dowry continues to prevail and bears no relation to the welfare of the woman. The practice has come to be described as the “groom price theory,” wherein the quantum of dowry is dictated by the groom’s attributes—such as social standing, educational qualifications and earning potential—resulting in a structurally biased system that disadvantages 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 forbidden within 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 vests solely in the wife and cannot be claimed or appropriated by the husband or his family.
The judgment further noted that, notwithstanding this legal and religious position, a combination of cultural, economic and institutional influences has led to the infiltration of dowry practices into 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 noted that mehr and dowry now coexist in a complex and intertwined manner, a development that has substantially diluted the very essence 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 vital bargaining safeguard and left increasingly vulnerable to economic insecurity.
“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 dowry is an urgent constitutional duty and a pressing social imperative.
