Dowry and mehr now co-exist in Muslim marriages, the Court lamented
On December 15, the Supreme Court issued a series of general directions to address the social evil of dowry deaths. It also overturned an Allahabad High Court judgment that had acquitted a husband and his mother, notwithstanding the Trial Court’s finding that they had set a 20-year-old woman ablaze for not fulfilling their demands for a colour television, a motorcycle, and ₹15,000.
The order was passed by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N.K. Singh. In a judgment authored by Justice Karol, the Court examined the historical roots of dowry, observing that it originated as a voluntary practice of gifting property to a daughter at the time of marriage for her personal use and financial security.
The judgment noted that over time, dowry evolved into an “institutionalised” practice and became closely linked with hypergamy—the custom of marrying into a socially or caste-higher family to maintain lineage. It further observed that cultural cross-fertilisation has led to the spread of dowry into the Muslim community, thereby weakening the protective function traditionally fulfilled 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 observed that the practice was enforced most rigidly among upper castes, where daughters were “married up” into families of superior ritual or political standing, frequently necessitating large dowries as inducements. Over time, this cemented dowry as a deeply entrenched 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 notwithstanding its legal prohibition, dowry continues to persist and is wholly disconnected from the welfare of the woman. The practice has come to be characterised as the “groom price theory,” under which the amount of dowry is determined by the groom’s attributes—such as social status, educational attainment, and earning capacity—thereby producing 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 noted that while dowry is prohibited in the Muslim community, mehr is a compulsory payment that the groom must provide to the bride at the time of nikah. He clarified that mehr belongs exclusively to the wife and cannot be claimed or appropriated by the husband or his family.
The judgment further observed that despite this position, the interplay of cultural, economic, and institutional factors has resulted in the spread 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 operate alongside each other in a complex interplay, a development that has effectively diluted the very essence of mehr and undermined the protection it was meant to afford.
“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 replaces or eclipses mehr, women are stripped of an essential bargaining safeguard and rendered more economically vulnerable.
“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 emphasised that the eradication of dowry is an urgent constitutional obligation and a compelling social necessity.
