From Blessing to Burden: The Journey of the Dowry System

Abstract

Once considered a social benefit for the bride from her parents’ point of view, the dowry  system is now seen as a social evil in society. This article explains how dowry customs in  Hinduism have evolved throughout time. Love and compassion for the daughter were the  main emphasis of this tradition, but it gradually turned into corruption, exploitation, and  violence against the lady. The Vedic, medieval, and colonial eras are also covered, with a  focus on how the British legal system impacted Indian society. In spite of the legal concepts  of the 1961 Dowry Prohibition Act, dowries are still popular in Indian society. The legal  interpretation of charges relating to dowries under the Indian Penal Code is defined by the  landmark decision in Satvi Singh v. State of Punjab. 

Key words; Dowry System, Social Evil, Hindu Customs, Vedic Period, British Legal System,  Kanyadaan, Varadakshina, Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, Indian Penal Code, Satvir Singh vs  State of Punjab, Section 498A IPC, Section 304B IPC, Women Harassment, Gender  Discrimination, Social Reform. 

Introduction 

People often claim that daughters are a burden on their families. This is not due to education  or necessities they give to their daughters, but rather the dowry parents are pressured to give  the groom at marriage. Because of the dowry system and the pressure on parents to provide  dowry for their daughters, many parents resort to gender determination tests to find out  whether the unborn child is a boy or a girl. If it is found to be a girl, they often commit  female foeticide or female infanticide. Thus, discrimination against women begins even  before they are born. 

Parents spend their entire lives amassing gold, jewellery, furniture, and money—not simply  for their daughter’s future, but specifically to meet dowry demands. In many unfortunate  cases, the failure to provide a dowry by the bride’s family or the inadequacy of the dowry  brought by the bride after the wedding can lead to mistreatment and harassment of the bride by the groom’s family. . Unfortunately, these violent acts frequently lead to “dowry deaths,”  in which victims pass away. As a result of extreme physical and psychological suffering,  these fatalities may be caused by horrifying methods including burning, hanging, or  poisoning. The terrible nature of this practice is demonstrated by a plethora of reports and  actual incidents from all throughout the nation. In addition to being a violation of human rights, dowry deaths also negatively affect society’s moral foundation. What used to be a  social norm has changed into a cause of great pain and even death. Society must recognize  and confront the serious consequences of the dowry system. 

In Indian society, a woman’s education, independence, or capacity to earn a fair living is  frequently not as important as the dowry she is expected to bring. Many men continue to  believe that demanding dowry is their right when entering into marriage. Although dowries  are now conveniently referred to as “gifts,” in reality, they are not gifts at all — they are a  heavy burden on families, particularly those from lower economic backgrounds. Countless  daughters remain unmarried because prospective grooms demand dowries worth lakhs of  rupees, or even property and land, turning marriage into a transaction rather than a union  based on love and respect. 

Evolution of Dowry: From Gift to Social Evil 

• The concept of dowry goes back to Vedic times. There are also references to dowry in  the Manu Smriti and other ancient writings. Dowry, in those early days, was not a  burden but a symbol of love and affection, an voluntary offering made to the bride at  the time she was going out from her parental home. It was practiced mostly by the  upper classes, but soon enough, the lower castes also started following this tradition  so that they could maintain their social status. 
• In the medieval ages, dowry was in the form of possessions, jewellery, or gifts that  were to guarantee a woman’s economic freedom once she got married, so she would  not be wholly dependent on the family of her husband. But with the passage of time,  the practice lost its original essence and turned rigid and materialistic. The gift which  was earlier given out of love turned into a money, property, or valuables demand from  
• The British Indian rule also impacted and aggravated this system. In their legal  system, women who were property holders were generally denied marriage and  ownership of the property was vested in the husband. The gifts that initially  represented love became mandatory payments, which were a huge financial burden  for the bride’s family. 
• Once India became independent, the dowry system did not vanish. Even though the  Dowry Prohibition Act of 19611 declared giving and receiving dowry an offence  punishable under law, the system persists in most areas of the country in the guise of  “gifts.” Many parents still have to undergo social pressure to pay dowry, and many  brides continue to receive harassment and violence when dowry demands are not met. 
• The British Indian regime also deeply affected the dowry system to the extent that it  became even more undesirable. In their legal system, property-owning women were  frequently prevented from marrying, the rights of ownership being passed on to their  husbands. Gifts with love, as they used to be, became obligatory and became a  financial burden on the bride’s side. When India became independent, the dowry  system was still deeply rooted. Even though giving or accepting dowries is illegal  under the 1961 Dowry Prohibition Act, the practice persists across most of the  country in disguise as “gifts.” Parents are still subject to social pressure to give  dowries, and brides often suffer harassment and abuse when they are not complied  with. 
• It’s worth noting that under English common law, a woman’s legal identity merged  with her husband upon marriage due to a doctrine known as coverture. This meant  married women couldn’t own property in their own name; instead, all income and  inheritance automatically belonged to their husbands. Consequently, any gifts  parents gave their daughters when they were married were claimed by their  husbands due to this legal framework introduced by the British. This contributed to  the persistence of the dowry system, as husbands would often demand dowries after  the British imposed their legal and administrative norms in India. This influence was  particularly evident in the colonial legal code, especially for Christians in Anglo-India. 
• The Married Women’s Property Act of 1874 (India) 2was the first law to say that  married women could own and manage property they got before or after marriage.  This law gave women the right to sue over their property and tried to stop the  automatic transfer of a woman’s assets to her husband. Even with these changes to  the law, the dowry system was still very common in Indian culture. The patriarchal  nature of Indian personal laws and the influence of British legal concepts reinforced  the notion that the husband is the head of the family and the rightful owner of the  property. Because of this, the dowry system hurt women for many generations. 
• Even after all the legal reforms, the dowry system remained a persistent part of Indian  culture. Indian personal law and the British legal system both reinforced the concept  of the husband as the head of the family and owner of all property. This supported the  continued practice of the dowry system across generations. Initially, giving gifts  represented affection, but over time, it became associated with the demand for dowry.  This highlights the need for broader social change. 

From Gift to Obligation: Transformation of Dowry in Hindu Culture 

In the past, Indian marriages were firmly based on religious traditions and customs. Among  them was the practice of Kanyadaan, [it is a Sanskrit term for “donating the daughter” and is  a traditional Hindu wedding ceremony in which the bride’s father presents her hand to the  groom, representing the handing over of the responsibility of the parents to the new husband  and the union of two families] referred to in the Dharamshastara, where the merit of  giving away one’s daughter in marriage was stressed. The practice of Kanyadaan was not  complete without the gifting of varadakshina— a symbol of love and affection by the bride’s  family to the bridegroom. This gift may be in the shape of ornaments, cash, or gifts,  expressing goodwill and not compulsion. But gradually, this friendly and willing gesture lost  its initial meaning. What started out as a religious gift out of love and respect over time became a coercive and obligatory requirement that birthed what we have today known as the  dowry system. 

From Custom to Crime: The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 

According to The Dowry Prohibition Act, 19613 “Dowry” means any property or valuable  security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- By the parents of either  party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other  person; at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the  said parties As per The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, offering or accepting dowry is an offence  punishable in Indian law. The Act clearly forbids demanding, giving, or accepting dowry at  any time before, during, or after marriage. Any person convicted of indulging in such acts can  be imprisoned and fined, the quantum of which would vary with the nature and degree of the  offence. This act was brought to practice to stop the age-old social ill of dowry and to provide  dignity, equality, and justice to women in marriage. 

Judicial Revolution: The Landmark Decision That Transformed the  Dowry System  

• In this case, Tejinder Pal Kaur, daughter of Narender Singh, holds a B.A. and B.Ed. In  1992, she was married to her husband, Satvir Singh, a businessman. After getting  married, she was living with her husband and in-laws, Devinder Singh and Paramjit  Kaur. 
• After a few months, her in-laws started abusing her for the purpose of acquiring more  dowry, specifically harassing Tejinder for a car, a house, and other items of the sort.  As part of their harassment, to placate Tejinder’s husband, her father provided Satvir  Singh with Rs. 20,000, but the abuse continued. 
• The trigger incident occurred one night when Satvir Singh became irate over a salad  containing too much salt. Tejinder claimed that her mother-in-law had doused the  salad in salt on purpose. Satvir Singh and his parents escalated the altercation by  “telling her to go and stand in front of a train and die.” 
• On the morning of June 17, 1996, at approximately 4 A.M., Tejinder approached the  railway lines and tried to kill herself by jumping in front of an approaching train. She was injured but did not die. Her statement was an important piece of evidence against  the accused. 
• The accused were convicted for the offenses of abetment to suicide under Section 116  r/w Section 306 IPC4and cruelty under Section 498A IPC5. The accused were  sentenced to two-and-a-half years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.  10,000 for the abetment of suicide, and for cruelty, they were sentenced to two years  of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000. 
• Tejinder Pal Kaur challenged the Trial Court conviction before the High Court. The  High Court sustained the conviction but replaced Section 306 with Section 304B  (dowry death) r/w Section 116 IPC. Sentences were enhanced to five years of rigorous  imprisonment for each appellant. 
• Tejinder Pal Kaur then approached the Supreme Court against the High Court  decision. 

Judgement of the supreme court  

The Supreme Court concluded that the judgment of the Sessions Court convicting Appellants  under Section 116 r/w Section 306 and Section 498A of IPC was incorrect. The Supreme  Court stated that an offence under Section 306 IPC is where there is successful attempt at  suicide. Here, Tejinder Pal Kaur had survived the suicide attempt, thus, Section 306 was not  applicable. The Court ruled that there could not be abetment of an attempt to commit suicide  under Section 306 IPC. 

The Court further pointed out that the High Court’s ruling of the alteration of the conviction  from Section 306 to Section 304B 6r/w Section 116 IPC also stood incorrect. The Court  looked at the factual scenario and concluded that Section 304B is not applicable. In this case,  Tejinder Pal Kaur had survived, Section 304B IPC was also not applicable. 

The Supreme Court also reviewed the prosecution evidence and ruled that the dowry  harassment had been perpetrated several months before the incident. The Court underscored  that in order to attract an offence under Section 304B IPC, there should be proof that the  victim had suffered from harassment or cruelty on grounds of dowry demands “soon before”  the incident. In this case, there was a time lag between the dowry demand and the suicide  attempt, and this caused a doubt as to whether the incident was related to dowry harassment. 

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 498A 7regardless of Sections 306  and 304B IPC being inapplicable. The Court held that there was sufficient material on record to prove that the appellants had been cruel to Tejinder Pal Kaur, justifying their conviction  under Section 498A. 

This judgment is a crucial precedent for dowry harassment, suicide, and cruelty cases in  future to ensure unambiguous application of these provisions under the Indian Penal Code 

Conclusion  

The system of dowry, which started as an act of goodness, has turned into a deep-rooted  social evil which continues to destroy lives and moral values. A demonstration of love and  blessing has now become a reason for misery, injustice, and even loss of life. Year by year,  many women in India are harassed, ill-treated, and tortured in the name of dowry — a custom  which should have long died out. Even with the strict laws like the *Dowry Prohibition Act  of 1961*, the societal mindset remains wedded to such old-fashioned thinking that quantifies  money in terms of human value, and greed versus dignity. 

It is time we, as a society, shatter this stereotype. A daughter is not a liability but a blessing  — she deserves love, respect, and equality, not a label on her wedding.”. It is up to each one  of us — parents, sons, daughters, communities — to refuse dowry, to resist this tradition, and  to make marriage a partnership of companionship and not an exchange. Only when people begin to respect character over money and relationships over wealth can  India call itself free from this age-old curse. Let us build a country where daughters are not  exchanged but rejoiced, where marriages are initiated in love, not in haggling, and where  every woman can live in dignity, pride, and peace.

Reference(S):

1 The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Act No. 28 of 1961, enacted by the Parliament of India, came into force on  1st July 1961.

2 The Married Women’s Property Act, 1874 (Act No. 3 of 1874)

3 The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Act No. 28 of 1961)

4Section 306 IPC – Abetment of suicide. 

Section 116 IPC – Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment, if offence not committed. 

5 Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 

6 Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 

7 Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860