Why tradition becomes a transaction: How daughters are sold or Murdered to satisfy family’s greed in the name of a tradition called Marriage Gift’s – All you need to know.

Dowry is not a tradition, it is a greed. It is a major social problem where the groom’s family demands money, cars, or expensive gifts from the bride’s family just for the marriage to happen. Where a young woman is tortured, driven to suicide, or murdered within the matrimonial home due to the unsatisfying demand for more dowry. Victims are subjected to continuous mental and physical torture (covered under Section 498A of the IPC in India) to force them or their family to fulfill dowry demands. This reinforces the patriarchal mindset that a woman is a “burden” or a “commodity” whose value is tied to the amount of wealth she brings to her husband’s family, reducing her human dignity. Such kind of tradition create and maintains a strong bias against female girl child.

The recent judgment by the SC bench of justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, stating that dowry is “material greed” rather than an acceptable “tradition,” marks a significant legal and sociological critique of judicial leniency, particularly in dowry death and cruelty cases. This decision, while reinforcing established anti-dowry legislation, provides a compelling analytical framework for courts handling bail applications in offenses under Section 304B (Dowry Death) and 498A (Cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The SC decision to cancel the bail granted by the High Court lies on a powerful re-evaluation of the legal presumptions of dowry crimes:

1. The most crucial legal error critique by the SC was the High Court’s failure to adequately consider the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This section defines “if a woman dies an unnatural death within seven years of marriage and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty for dowry”, the court shall presume that the husband or his relatives caused the dowry death.  The High court by granting bail, ignored the grave nature of this presumption, treating such offense as a normal crime without acknowledging the intent to provide a reverse burden of proof which is specifically designed to combat such nature of dowry deaths.
2. The SC’s judgment serves as a necessary check on the application of the “Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception” principle (established in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand).
3. It is the Serious Offenses, the Court stated that this principle is not absolute, especially when applied to grave offenses like Dowry Death.
4. The ruling prioritizes “public interest and the necessity of deterrence” over individual liberty at the starting stage, arguing that judicial passivity in such kind of  cases sends a wrong signal to society and encourages perpetrators.

The Court’s strong choice to define dowry as “greed” and a “commercial transaction” rather than a “tradition” is a key rhetorical and interpretive move by rejecting the cultural defense and constitutional violation.

The SC in this case cancelled the bail granted by the High Court to the husband who was accused of his wife’s dowry death, noting that the HC not able to consider the gravity of the offense, the available evidence, and the statutory presumption against the accused in the cases under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. The Supreme Court of India, as noted in your previous and repeatedly condemned it in strongest words, stating that it has reduced the “pious bond of marriage to a mere commercial transaction” and is an act of greed, not tradition. The practice encourages greed and materialism over love and companionship thereby corroding the fundamental moral of the community. The fight against such social evil acts requires not just legal enforcement, but a fundamental shift in social mindset to truly see a woman as an equal, dignified, and invaluable part of society. This decision is a critical legal commentary that prioritize greater scrutiny in dowry-related bail matters. This serves as a direction to mandate subordinate courts to consider Section 113B/304B/498A and prioritize Societal Interest.

ABOUT AUTHOR

Adv. Pallavi Sharma, Delhi based Advocate, who is a legal practitioner and researcher with a growing interest in cyber law, IPR, constitutional law, and women’s and child rights. She recently started to contribute through analytical writing and awareness initiatives on contemporary legal issues.