The Dowry Dilemma: Balancing Protection and Preventing Misuse in India By: Catherine Shuler

The death of 34-year-old Atul Subhash, who was found with a note reading “justice is due,” ignited a renewed debate surrounding India’s anti-dowry laws.[1] His death was ruled as a suicide after the discovery of a “24-page suicide note and 81-minute video,” in which he blamed his death on his marital troubles and divorce proceedings.[2] He specifically accused his estranged wife, Nikita Singhania, her mother, and her brother of harassment and torture stemming from what he claimed were “false court cases” filed by his wife.[3] These cases, he alleged, accused him of dowry[4]harassment and demanded 30 million rupees ($352,675) to withdraw the case, 3 million rupees[5] for visitation rights to their son, and an increase in “monthly maintenance” from 40,000 rupees to 200,000 rupees.[6]

            Subhash’s case brought renewed attention to the challenges of India’s Prohibition of Dowry Act of 1961, which bans the giving, taking and demanding dowry.[7] The Act penalizes such actions by imposing a penalty of imprisonment for no less than five years and a fine of at least 15,000 rupees or the equivalent value of the dowry involved, whichever is greater.[8] The Act was aimed to protect women from violence and harassment, which was often perpetrated by husbands or in-laws seeking larger dowries from the bride’s family.[9] Such violence could include beatings, confinement, starvation, physical and mental torture, strangulation, being burned alive, and even forced suicide when dowry demands were not met.[10] Rina, who was set ablaze by her husband and in-laws over dowry, exemplifies the tragic consequences of this practice.[11] The Prohibition of Dowry Act was thus enacted to shield women from such dowry-related harassment and violence.[12]

            To further strengthen protections against dowry violence, the Indian Government implemented several amendments and acts over the years.[13] In 1983, Section 498A was added to the Penal Code, criminalizing cruelty by husbands and his families with penalties of up to three years’ imprisonment and fines.[14] Cruelty, as defined in Section 498A, includes acts that drive a woman to suicide, cause grave injury, or endanger her life.[15] In 1986, the Dowry Prohibition Act was amended, and Section 304B was incorporated into the India Penal Code, specifically defining dowry deaths as a crime carrying severe penalties.[16] Under Section 304B, if a woman dies under suspicious circumstances, particularly if preceded by cruelty and harassment related to dowry, the perpetrator faces a minimum of seven years’ imprisonment and potentially life imprisonment.[17]

            Despite these legal measures, dowry remains a widespread practice in India, leaving women vulnerable to domestic violence and even death.[18] The deeply ingrained social norm of marriage in India contributes to this issue.[19]Parents often prioritize finding a “good groom” for their daughters and are willing to pay substantial dowries to secure such a match.[20] In fact, researchers have noted that in recent years, more men are educated and employed in better quality jobs, resulting in higher dowry demands.[21]

Another factor perpetuating the dowry practice is the weak enforcement of anti-dowry laws.[22] This weak enforcement is partly due to the continued social acceptance of dowry,[23] but also to the recent backlash against anti-dowry laws due to their alleged misuse in settling personal conflicts and harassing husbands and their families.[24] Atul Subhash’s suicide has become a rallying point for critics who argue that these laws are being used by women to harass their husbands, driving them to suicide.[25] The Calcutta High Court,[26] for example, has even described the misuse of Section 498A as “legal terrorism.”[27] Government crime data further reveals that a significant portion of male suicides involve married men, with family disputes cited as a frequent reason for suicide.[28] Consequently, critics of the anti-dowry laws advocate for reforms ranging from repealing the anti-dowry laws[29], making the laws more gender neutral,[30] or even penalizing women who misuse these laws.[31]

Conversely, supporters of anti-dowry laws emphasize the continued need for specific protections, recognizing that women are disproportionately affected by dowry violence.[32] They call for stronger enforcement and further protections, citing the persistent prevalence of dowry and the thousands of brides killed annually.[33] According to the National Crime Records Bureau, over 6,450 brides were murdered over dowry in 2022 – an average of 18 women every day.[34]Therefore, they argue for greater protection and enforcement of these laws to safeguard women.[35]

India has addressed some of these concerns. In 2005, the Supreme Court of India,[36] ruled against repealing Section 498A, arguing that misuse of a law does not invalidate the law itself, and advocated for proper enforcement to prevent such misuse.[37] Moreover, current Indian laws do not readily support gender-neutral anti-dowry legislation.[38]The Indian Constitution, rather than mandating gender-neutral policies, allows for gender-specific policies to uplift marginalized genders.[39] Also, as previously discussed, India has attempted to strengthen its anti-dowry laws by imposing stricter penalties.[40]

            The critical question moving forward is how India can amend and implement its anti-dowry laws to balance legitimate complaints with the need to protect innocent individuals from false accusations, while simultaneously safeguarding women’s rights.[41] One approach is to reform the investigation process for dowry cases, providing law enforcement agencies with better training and resources to conduct thorough investigations before arrests are made.[42]Another strategy is to strengthen penalties, making them more stringent for repeat offenders and implementing penalties for those who make demonstrably false and malicious accusations.[43] Such measures could deter both dowry-related crimes and the filing of false complaints.[44] However, penalties for false allegations must be carefully targeted to apply only to complaints that are demonstrably baseless and malicious, intended to cause harm to the accused,[45] ensuring that women are not discouraged from reporting legitimate dowry harassment.[46] These amendments aim to both prevent tragedies like Rina’s[47] and deter the misuse of the law[48], as in the case of Atul Subhash.[49]

[1] Geeta Pandey, A Man’s Suicide Leads to Clamour Around India’s Dowry Law, BBC (Dec. 22, 2024), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c33d6161z3yo.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Dowry is defined as the transfer of cash, jewelry, and other valuable assets from the bride’s family to the groom’s family at the time of marriage. Momoe Makino, Dowry and Women’s Empowerment: Why Does the Practice Remain in South Asia?, Inst. of Dev. Econ. (IDE) – Japan External Trade Org. (JETRO) (Oct. 2022), https://www.ide.go.jp/English/ResearchColumns/Columns/2022/makino_momoe_02.html.

[5] 3 million rupees is equivalent to $34,643.10. 3,000,000 Indian Rupees to US Dollars, Wise, http://wise.com/us/currency-converter/inr-to-usd-rate?amount=3000000 (last visited Feb. 20, 2025).

[6] Pandey, supra note 1. 200,000 rupees is equivalent to $2,309.54. Wise, supra note 3.

[7] Zartab Ahmad, Dowry Laws in India: Are They Truly Protecting Women?, Legal Serv. India, https://legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-19224-dowry-laws-in-india-are-they-truly-protecting-women-.html (last visited Feb. 20, 2025). The Act defined “dowry” as “any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly: a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or b) 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.” Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Aamina Maryam, Issues Related to Dowry Laws in India, Soc’y of Advancement of Crim. Just. (Mar. 21, 2022), https://www.nujssacj.com/post/issues-related-to-dowry-laws-in-india.

[10] Id.

[11] PTI, Dowry Death Case: Four of a Family Convicted in UP, Deccan Herald (Dec. 18, 2024), https://www.deccanherald.com/india/uttar-pradesh/dowry-death-case-four-of-a-family-convicted-in-up-3322703.

[12] Maryam, supra note 9.  

[13] Ahmad, supra note 7.  

[14] Ahmad, supra note 7.  

[15] Ahmad, supra note 7.  

[16] Ahmad, supra note 7.  

[17] Ahmad, supra note 7.  

[18] Soutik Biswas, How Prosperity Fuels Dowry Demand in India, BBC (May 28, 2023), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-65682796.

[19] Shreya Kalia, Why Are Dowry Payments Rising in India?, Feminism in India (Oct. 24, 2021), https://feminisminindia.com/2021/10/04/why-are-dowry-payments-rising-in-india/#google_vignette.   

[20] Id.

[21] Biswas, supra note 18.  

[22] Kriti Barua, Dowry System in India: Check Laws, Types, IPC and Prohibition Act You Need to Know, Jargan Josh (Dec. 12, 2024), https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/dowry-system-in-india-check-laws-types-ipc-and-prohibition-act-1734002766-1.

[23] Id.

[24] Ahmad, supra note 7.  

[25] Pandey, supra note 1.

[26] The Calcutta High Court is the second highest court in India, under the Supreme Court of India, and has jurisdiction over the State of West Bengal and the Union Territory of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. See Calcutta High Ct., https://www.calcuttahighcourt.gov.in/ (last visited Feb. 20, 2025); see also India, Judiciaries Worldwide, https://judiciariesworldwide.fjc.gov/country-profile/india (last visited Feb. 20, 2025).

[27] Arvind Gunasekar, “Meant to Strike Out Dowry Menace, But …”: Court on Misuse of Key Law, NDTV (Aug. 22, 2023), https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/498-a-dowry-harassment-domestic-violence-some-have-unleashed-legal-terrorism-court-on-dowry-law-misuse-4318195.

[28] Pandey, supra note 1.

[29] See e.g. Kritika Garg, Interpretation of Section 498A IPC: Conflicting Judicial Decisions and Overstepping the Legislature, NewsClick (Aug. 8, 2022), https://www.newsclick.in/Interpretation-Section-498A-IPC-Conflicting-Judicial-Decisions-Overstepping-Legislature (discussing the Supreme Court’s decision in Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union of India & Ors. to not invalidate Section 498A).

[30] See e.g. Deepika Bhardwaj: The Woman Who Fights for Men’s Rights, BBC (Jan. 20, 2017), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-38647822 (discussing the need to make anti-dowry laws gender neutral in order to prevent cases of misuse).

[31] Ahmad, supra note 7.  

[32] Pandey, supra note 1.

[33] Pandey, supra note 1.

[34] Pandey, supra note 1.

[35] Pandey, supra note 1.

[36] The Supreme Court of India is India’s highest court. See India, Judiciaries Worldwide, https://judiciariesworldwide.fjc.gov/country-profile/india (last visited Feb. 20, 2025).

[37] Ahmad, supra note 7.  

[38] See e.g. Debapriya Biswas, Gender Neutral Laws in India, LawSikho (Dec. 28, 2023), https://blog.ipleaders.in/what-are-the-laws-on-gender-neutrality-in-india/#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20of%20India%20(1950,uplifting%20of%20the%20marginalised%20genders (discussing the need for gender-neutral laws in India).

[39] Id.

[40] See e.g. Ahmad, supra note 7.  

[41] Ahmad, supra note 7.  

[42] Ahmad, supra note 7.  

[43] Ahmad, supra note 7.  

[44] Ahmad, supra note 7.  

[45] See e.g. Nitish Banka, When to File Defamation in Matrimonial Cases?, Lexspeak Legal (Aug. 22, 2024), https://lexspeak.in/2024/08/when-to-file-defamation-in-matrimonial-cases/ (discussing an avenue in which accusers of dowry violence can seek claims of defamation when the accusation is false and intended to harm the accuser).  

[46] See e.g. Varsha Ramakrishnan, The Dowry System in India: Is the Trend Changing?, Pulitzer Center (Oct. 14, 2013), https://pulitzercenter.org/projects/dowry-system-india-trend-changing (discussing that most cases of dowry violence go unreported).

[47] See PTI, supra note 11.  

[48] See Ahmad, supra note 7.  

[49] See Pandey, supra note 1.