A wedding in India is often viewed as a celebration of the union of two people, families, love and continuity. It is often represented through photographs, rituals and collective expressions of joy. But beneath the surface lies another side of the truth that continues to determine the fate of many marriages: the expectation of financial exchanges, often referred to as “gifts” or “customs,” that are obligatory between families.
This contrast becomes clearer when compared with the social history and legal aspects of dowry in India. According to the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961Dowry is prohibited in all conditions of social practices and is further regulated by legal provisions related to marital cruelty and harassment. In textbooks, public discussions and media, dowry is often portrayed as something that is not only illegitimate but also harmful to everyone. However, despite many efforts, it continues to be practiced in all communities and regions as part of a mandatory exchange custom.
This reality raises the important question as to why a practice that is banned by law and condemned by society continues to be practiced in marriages in contemporary India.
A systematic cultural practice
Part of the answer to the question of whether dowry is still widespread lies in how it is often misrepresented in public discourse. It is often portrayed as either an “outdated ritual” fading with rapid urbanization and modernization, or it is reduced to a few, isolated incidents of criminal violence. Both framings overlook its structural nature. In reality, dowry is not just a cultural practice or a series of individual crimes; It is a gendered economic system rooted in marriages and shaped by class, caste and unequal access to financial autonomy.
In this context, marriage is not only a personal union, but also an institutionalized social structure. These include families, social status, economic exchange and public image. Within such a system, financial negotiations become normalized, particularly when they lead to unequal power dynamics between relationships. Women in particular hold restricted positions in which marriage is tied to family honor, financial stability and social standing.
Pop and cinema culture reflect this contrast in a significant way. Films like Daawat-e-Ishq (2014) Bring dowry into the mainstream discussion by highlighting it as a societal issue where transactional negotiations often dominate marriage conversations and as something where action needs to be taken. The film analyzes how economic expectations are normalized through the language of ritual and social standing, making the practice of dowry visible to a wider audience.
However, its dissolution reveals a broader limitation of cultural representation. The problem is solved through character transformation and the typical romantic conclusion. Dowry becomes the basis for an individual’s moral values rather than their power, coupled with less commitment to law enforcement or accountability, reflecting the tendency to portray systemic violence and abuse as isolated incidents rather than questioning their structured origins.
A gender-specific and intersectional institution
The spread of dowry cannot be explained solely by awareness of the problem. In various cases, people who participate in or fulfill dowry already know that the practice is illegal and socially forbidden. The problem is not a lack of educational awareness, but rather systemic barriers.
Dowry still exists because it is rooted in the intersecting systems of gender, caste, class and relationships. Marriages in India function as institutions in which families discuss resources, reputation-based status, and alliances. In this structure, women often struggle with limited freedom of choice because marriage is closely linked to financial dependence and the legitimacy of the relationship.
An economic research article shows that dowry did not decrease with increasing levels of education or modernization. Instead, it was adopted in Indian marriages. In many cases, it manifests itself in the form of “obligatory” gifts, lavish weddings, property and wealth transfers, or expected contributions that reflect the idea of compliance with the transactional exchange. This adaptability allowed dowry to prevail even in contexts where it was viewed by the general public as an extremely dangerous practice.
In addition, dowry is influenced by social stability, caste and class communities. In such situations, it becomes part of the competition for higher status, luxury and wealth by portraying marital conversations as symbols of capital exchange, making financial expectations seem normal while concealing structural inequality. These systems determine not only how dowry is exchanged, but also how it is discussed, justified or concealed. This means that dowry is not only a gender-specific issue, but also an intersectional one, in which different forms of social prosperity come together in the institution of marriage.
The legal and lived gap
There are several legal tools to address the issue of dowry, but their implementation remains inconsistent. While the Dowry Prohibition Act criminalizes the custom and related provisions involving mental and physical harassment and domestic cruelty, enforcement remains inconsistent. According to the National Crime Records Bureau about 16 women are killed due to daily dowry demands that show how the Harassment and deaths due to dowry continue to be reported daily and annually and demonstrate a systemic prevalence rather than isolated incidents.
Furthermore, recent cases such as the alleged dowry-related deaths Twisha Sharma (Bhopal) And Deepika Nagar (Noida) in 2026 also underline that dowry continues to take extreme forms of violence, although it is an illegal act and public awareness of the practice is persistent. While the cases remain under investigation, their visibility reveals a recurring pattern in which financial constraints, marital pressures and structural gaps intersect to create emotional complexities within marriage.
However, these NCRB statistics only include reported cases. Several experiences of marital pressure, abuse and violence continue to go unreported in official systems due to fear or lack of trust in the legal and justice systems. As feminist legal scholars Lotika Sarkar And Archana ParasharHis work made it clear that possession of legal rights and formal laws does not automatically lead to access to the justice system, especially when social and systemic barriers remain intact in India.
This gap between legality and lived reality is crucial to understanding dowry as a structural obstacle rather than an accepted tradition.
In conclusion, dowry remains prevalent in India, not because it is overlooked, but because it is structurally rooted in the gendered systems that shape the path to marriage. Knowledge and awareness of the problem alone was not enough to decimate it, as the practice remains persistent due to intersecting inequalities of gender, class, and institutional access. To address dowry, one must go beyond symbolic recognition and seek structural societal change, with legal protections and an accessible legal and judicial system, and where societal norms no longer normalize financial oppression under the guise of tradition or gift exchange. Until refusal to comply with dowry expectations becomes socially safe for women and their families, dowry will continue to prevail as an accepted feature of marriages in India.
