NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES, KOCHI

LEGAL METHODS ASSIGNMENT

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT,1961
AND
SCOPE FOR REFORMS

Name : [Link]
Course : B.A LLB(Hons.), 1 st
Sem
Roll No.:2160

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Critical Analysis of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 and Scope for Reforms..........................3

Abstract..................................................................................................................................3

Introduction............................................................................................................................3

Objectives of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961......................................................................4

Essential Provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961.......................................................5

Critical Analysis of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961............................................................8

Loopholes of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961......................................................................9

Landmark Decisions.............................................................................................................11

Suggestion for Reforms........................................................................................................12

Conclusion............................................................................................................................14

Bibliography and References...................................................................................................16

2
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT,1961 AND
SCOPE FOR REFORMS

ABSTRACT

Dowry is a social evil practiced for many years in various forms. In any form, this dowry
system would shatter our society's base. The Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 was enacted to
eradicate this vicious system. In this evolving social and political landscape, the Act fails to
address many problems. A thorough examination is necessary to address the shortcomings
and loopholes of this Act and to reform this Act to free our society from this unwanted
practice.

INTRODUCTION

Numerous social injustices have affected women throughout the years, including
female foeticide, female infanticide, marital rape, dowry deaths, bride burning, physical and
psychological abuse, attack by husbands and family, and. These types of atrocities against
women have been happening mainly because of the dowry system. The first two categories of
crimes are primarily committed by the parents and relatives of the female because of the fear
of dowry demand and the cost incurred at the time of marriage of their girl children. Other
categories of crime are the result of the failure of the part of the parents of the bride to meet
or fulfil the dowry demands of the bridegroom and his relatives after marriage.
Stridhana (Stree-woman, dhana-wealth) was mentioned in Katyayana as
anything given through art or gift and received when unmarried, the same being carried by
the bride to her marital home and carried on even in her widowhood. It was a token of
affection without demand from the boy's side, where the bride received gifts that included
jewelry, cash, part of or the entire bride price on which the wife had the absolute right, and
the husband could not take or dispose of without the permission or knowledge of the wife.
In ancient India, the bridegroom paid the bride price to the bride's father for
depriving her of services to her family, and it also felt disgraceful for the bride's family to
give her in marriage for nothing. During the Medieval Period, the Rajputs started practicing a
system similar to the system in practice today. Still, even amongst them, only the Royal and
aristocratic families followed the practice to show their pride. However, today, the Dowry

3
comprises material gifts such as technology products, automobiles, jewels, and cash paid to
the groom. In theory, the transactions occur in the bride's name, but in reality, the bridegroom
and his family enjoy it. The worst thing is that it does not stop before or after the marriage.
Still, it continues even after marriage on various occasions in the favour of the bridegroom's
family.
To eradicate this evil system of Dowry, the government of India, on 24 April 1959,
introduced the Dowry Prohibition Bill 1959 in the Lok Sabha, with the primary objective of
eradicating the evils of the dowry system. After discussions, the Bill was referred to a Joint
Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 was passed at
the joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament on 6 and 9 May 1961 and came into force on 1
July 1961. However, despite the existence of this act along with other provisions such as
Section 80, Section 85, Section 86, and Section 88 of The New Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, the rate of crimes against women in connection with Dowry is on the rise, which
highlights the weaknesses of various legislations made to protect women's rights.
This paper aims to critically analyze the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 and its scope
for reforms. It examines the provisions, penalties and punishments, objectives and loopholes
of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, and various landmark cases regarding Dowry. It
provides suggestions for reforming this act to fulfill its purpose effectively.

OBJECTIVES OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT,1961

The purpose of this act is to prohibit the practice of Dowry and penalize the offenses
related to the demand of dowry, as disputes related to dowry often escalate into violence, with
women enduring physical and emotional abuse. Hence, this act aims to provide legal
safeguards to women, ensuring their protection from exploitation and harassment related to
dowry demands. Also, such dowry-related disputes can lead to severe consequences such as
separation or divorce. This kind of instability disrupts the family environment and negatively
impacts children. Children in families experiencing domestic violence or marital discord due
to dowry demands suffer emotionally and psychologically. The Act, by deterring dowry-
related violence, indirectly protects children from such harmful environments and promotes
marital and familial harmony.
The Act sought to deter potential offenders through strict legal consequences, aiming
to create a safer environment for women within the institution of marriage. Under the Act,
any agreement to provide dowry is considered void and unenforceable by law. This act

4
criminalizes the act of demanding, giving, or taking of Dowry and aims to empower women
by ensuring their economic security and dignity within marriage.
Section 8B of the Dowry Prohibition Act empowers the appointment of Dowry Prohibition
Officers, whose role includes investigating dowry-related complaints, which helps to ensure
that complaints are not acted upon blindly but are subject to scrutiny by these officers.
Moreover, courts have stressed that broad or vague allegations against multiple family
members cannot secure convictions without substantive evidence. This judicial stance creates
a natural deterrent against filing false or exaggerated complaints, as the evidence required for
a judgment needs to be clear and specific. Following concerns about wrongful arrests under
dowry-related laws, including Section 498A, the Supreme Court of India) These guidelines
align with the objectives of the Dowry Prohibition Act by ensuring that legal actions are not
taken arbitrarily or without due process. Arrests can only be made after the investigating
officers have credible evidence that supports the complaint.
Through the Act, the government and non-governmental organizations are empowered
to run public awareness campaigns aimed at educating citizens about the illegality of dowry
and the serious legal consequences of dowry-related cruelty and harassment.
The Act also mandates that awareness programs be carried out at the grassroots level,
informing people of the penalties for demanding dowry and encouraging victims to come
forward. These legal literacy campaigns often highlight the broader scope of anti-cruelty
laws, explaining how harassment or mental cruelty, even if not directly connected to dowry, is
punishable under Section 498A of IPC (now under Section 85 of BNS1).

ESSENTIAL PROVISIONS OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT,1961

Definition of Dowry: This Act defines Dowry under Section 2, which is as follows:
Definition of “dowry”. —In this Act, “dowry” means 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 any other person; at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with
the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to
whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.2

1
The New Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No.45, Acts of Parliament, 2023
2
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, § 2, No.28, Acts of Parliament, 1961

5
Penalty: Section 3 of the Act prescribes the punishment for giving or taking of dowry as:
Penalty for giving or taking dowry.—(1)If any person, after the commencement of this Act,
gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable 6with
imprisonment for a
Term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen
thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment,
impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years
Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to or about—
(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand
having
been made on that behalf):
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained by the rules made
under this Act;
(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand
having been made on that behalf):
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained by the rules made
under this Act:
Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person
related to the bride, such presents are customary, and the value thereof is not excessive
having regard to the financial status of the person by whom or on whose behalf, such presents
are given.3
Also, under Section 4, punishment is prescribed for demanding Dowry as:
‘Penalty for demanding dowry.—If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the
parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any
dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six
months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand
rupees:
For adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, the Court may impose a
sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.’4

3
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, § 3, No.28, Acts of Parliament, 1961
4
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, § 4, No.28, Acts of Parliament, 1961

6
The burden of proof: Under Section 8A of the Act, the accused must prove his innocence
rather than the victim having to prove the offenses.
‘Burden of proof in certain cases.—Where any person is prosecuted for taking or abetting the
taking of any dowry under section 3, or the demanding of dowry under section 4, the burden
of proving that he had not committed an offense under those sections shall be on him.’5

Appointment of Dowry Prohibition Officers: Section 8B of the Act establishes the

provision of Dowry Prohibition Officers.
‘Dowry Prohibition Officers.—(1) The State Government may appoint as many Dowry
Prohibition Officers as it thinks fit and specify the areas where they shall exercise their
jurisdiction and powers under this Act.
(2) Every Dowry Prohibition Officer shall exercise and perform the following powers and
functions, namely:—
(a) to see that the provisions of this Act are complied with;
(b) to prevent, as far as possible, the taking or abetting the taking of, or the demanding of,
dowry;
(c) to collect such evidence as may be necessary for the prosecution of persons committing
offenses under the Act, and
(d) to perform such additional functions as may be assigned to him by the State Government
or as specified in the rules made under this Act.
(3) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, confer such powers of
a police officer as may be specified in the notification on the Dowry Prohibition Officer, who
shall exercise such powers subject to such limitations and conditions as may be determined
by rules made under this Act.
(4) The State Government may, to advise and assist Dowry Prohibition Officers in the
efficient performance of their functions under this Act, appoint an advisory board consisting
of not more than five social welfare workers (out of whom at least two shall be women) from
the area in respect of which such Dowry Prohibition Officer exercises jurisdiction under sub-
section (1).’6

5
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, § 8A, No.28, Acts of Parliament, 1961

6
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, § 8B, No.28, Acts of Parliament, 1961

7
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT,1961

The Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 is a short piece of legislation with ten sections to express
its objective of prohibiting the giving and receiving of dowry.
The journey towards the Dowry Prohibition Act began with provincial enactments like the
Sindh Deti Leti Act of 1939, the Bihar Dowry Restraint Act of 1950, and The Andhra Pradesh
Dowry Prohibition Act of 1958. These laws attempted to limit dowry, but societal practices
persisted, leading to increased pressure for more stringent legislation. The Dowry Prohibition
Act of 1961 was a watershed moment in the fight against dowry-related practices. It
criminalized the act of giving or taking dowry and aimed to provide legal protection to
women from financial exploitation and harassment. The Act did introduce severe penalties,
including imprisonment and fines, for those found guilty of demanding or accepting dowry.
Despite its significance, the Act faces many challenges in efficient enforcement due to
societal attitudes, lack of awareness, and gaps in legal provisions. Over the years,
amendments were introduced to strengthen the Act and address emerging issues. However,
despite all these, one of the main factors in the failure to accomplish its purpose is the flaws
of the Act and its Amendments.
1. Section 2 of this Act invalidates the actual purpose for which the Act was passed, as no
one will accept that they have given the dowry in women's interest. Then, it is impossible to
demonstrate that the presents were given as payment for the marriage to the girl.
2. The State has extended legitimacy to the practice of dowry by granting the wife the
complete control over the stridhana, the property in the form of gifts, presents, jewellery, etc.
Also, the gifts given by the parents or relatives to the bride out of affection do not come
under the scope of this Act, which could be misused.
3. It has also been recognized that in consequence or connection with dowry demands,
many women are harassed, brutalized, murdered, or induced to commit suicide. The
disturbing fact in most of such reported cases is that woman plays a pivotal role in this crime
against the younger woman, and the husband is either a silent spectator or even an active
participant in the crime. Furthermore, most women are afraid to implicate their husbands in a
dowry crime simply because Indian society has conditioned women to anticipate or expect
abuse and, in some sense, eventually, in their lives.
3. The Act primarily addresses traditional forms of dowry. Still, dowry practices have
evolved, taking new forms such as "gift-giving" and "dowry disguised as gifts," which may
not be adequately addressed by existing legislation. Loopholes of the Dowry Prohibition Act

8
often allow perpetrators to evade accountability. They enable offenders to exploit ambiguities
and make it challenging for law enforcement to build strong cases. The Act's inability to
differentiate genuine gifts from dowry transactions and the difficulties in evaluating the
actual value of dowry items weaken its deterrent impact. Moreover, these gaps perpetuate
societal acceptance of dowry practices, as manipulations create an illusion of compliance
with the exploitation continuing covertly, which not only undermines the Act's goal of
eradicating dowry but also reinforces harmful gender stereotypes and power imbalances
within families, perpetuating the subjugation of women.
4. The Act often faces implementation hurdles due to various factors such as corruption,
bias, and inadequate resources within law enforcement agencies. As a result, many dowry-
related offenses go unreported or unpunished, undermining the deterrent effect of the law.
5. Dowry is deeply entrenched in societal norms and cultural traditions, making it
perplexing to eradicate solely through legal measures. Attitudes of a large number of people
that perpetuate gender inequality and discrimination against women contribute to the
persistence of dowry practices despite legal prohibitions, which negatively affect their
implementation.
6. Many victims of dowry harassment face barriers in accessing support systems and
legal redress as there is an absence of effective mechanisms for reporting and addressing
dowry-related crimes, which further undermines the act's efficacy. To effectively combat the
menace of dowry, a multifaceted approach is essential. This approach should encompass:
The persistence of dowry-related crimes and the emergence of new challenges, such as online
transactions and disguised dowry demands, highlights the need for a comprehensive
evaluation of the Act's efficacy. By identifying and addressing the structural and systemic
factors that perpetuate dowry, India can move closer to achieving gender equality and
ensuring the safety and dignity of all its citizens. It is understood from this current situation
that continual amendments and reforms are necessary to adapt to evolving societal norms and
practices, ensuring a dowry-free and just society for all.

LOOPHOLES OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT,1961

The Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, a crucial legal instrument in combatting dowry-related
practices in India, exhibits some exceptions and vulnerabilities that need careful
consideration for comprehensively evaluating the Act's effectiveness in dealing with crafty
manipulations of the law.

9
 Regarding exceptions embedded within the Act, a significant one involves the acceptance
of gifts presented to the bride or groom during the wedding without prior demand. While
this provision intends to recognize customary, voluntary gift-giving, it becomes
contentious when distinguishing between such gestures and coerced dowry transactions,
leading to potential misuse.
Frequently exploited loopholes include lax enforcement regarding disguised dowry
exchanges, where offenders use clever strategies to avoid legal consequences. These
transactions may be masked as innocent gifts or financial aid, blurring the line between
genuine goodwill gestures and dowry-related coercion.
Ambiguity in assessing the value of dowry items also allows room for manipulation, as
the Act lacks specific criteria for this evaluation. Furthermore, the Act's limitations in
addressing indirect dowry demands made by the groom's family after marriage pose a
significant challenge, as post-wedding demands often evade legal scrutiny, enabling
ongoing dowry-related harassment.
Legal proceedings can be lengthy and cumbersome, leading to delayed justice for victims.
There are offenses like harassment, cruelty, abuse, etc., taking place because of the
demand for dowry because of the non-existence of as much punishment as expected for
legal violations concerning dowry and because men do not face problems economically
and socially due to the dissolution of marriage.
On the other side, some loopholes could be misused by the bride’s side because, under
Section 8A of the Act, the burden of proof lies on the accused. While this provision
protects the victim, there is also a chance of false complaints from the bride’s side, for
example, in the case of Mahila Nisha Sharma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.7
These exceptions and loopholes bear profound implications for the Act's effectiveness, as
addressing these exceptions and closing existing loopholes is imperative to fortify the
Act's provisions. A more precise legal framework, combined with robust enforcement, is
necessary to ensure the Act effectively upholds the rights and dignity of women in India.
Addressing these loopholes requires careful planning and a strict but practical
implementation to rectify them and eradicate the social evil of dowry.

LANDMARK DECISIONS

7
Mahila Nisha Sharma v. State of M.P., 2012 SCC OnLine MP 6592

10
 1. Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab8: In this landmark case decided by the Supreme Court
in 2001, the court clarified the definition of "dowry" under the Dowry Prohibition
Act. The court held that any property or valuable security given directly or indirectly
at or before or after the marriage as consideration for marriage would constitute
dowry under the Act.
2. Appasaheb & Ors v. State of Maharashtra9: This case, commonly known as the
"Bhanwari Devi Case," gained widespread attention for its role in highlighting the
issue of dowry-related violence and the legal response to such crimes. The case, heard
by the Supreme Court in 2006, involved the gang rape of ‘Bhanwari Devi,’ a social
worker, as a result of her efforts to prevent child marriage due to dowry demands. The
court's verdict underscored the need for stringent measures to combat dowry-related
violence and emphasized the importance of effective implementation of laws.
3. Kamlesh panjiyar v. State of Bihar 10: In this case, the Appellant demanded Rs. 40,000
as a dowry from the Respondent, which was paid to him. After the marriage, the
Appellant demanded more dowry, but the Respondent failed to fulfill the demand for
a dowry by the bride or her family. Due to the unfulfillment of the market, the
appellant started to torture and cause many injuries to the respondent, and due to such
torture, the respondent died. In this case, the session judge held that the appellant was
guilty and punishable by ten years.
4. Rohtash vs. State of Haryana11: This case highlights the positive impact of improved
training on investigative quality. Analytically, ongoing training programs can
significantly enhance investigations' effectiveness. Still, these programs should be
done correctly so that instances of dowry harassment and death can be prevented
timely.
5. Mahila Nisha Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh12: The Nisha Sharma case was anti-
dowry litigation in India that began in 2003 when Nisha Sharma accused her future
husband, Munish Dalal, of demanding dowry. The case received extensive publicity in
national and international media, where Nisha Sharma was portrayed as a role model
for other women and a youth icon. However, it was eventually determined that Nisha

8
Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2001) 8 SCC 633
9
Appasaheb & Ors v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/7002/2007
10
Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC 388
11
Rohtash vs. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0483/2012
12
Mahila Nisha Sharma v. State of M.P., 2012 SCC OnLine MP 6592

11
 had fabricated the allegations to avoid marriage, and all defendants were acquitted in
2012.13

SUGGESTION FOR REFORMS

With the implementation of the dowry prohibition legal guidelines, it is frequent allegation
that anti-dowry rules are more in breach than in implementation. Be that as it could, however,
the reality remains that dowry, being a socio-legal problem, cannot be tackled by using
regulation alone unless individuals in a society come ahead and actively cooperate with law-
enforcement corporations to uproot this social evil. There is also a need to create a social
focus and mobilize public opinion in opposition to dowry through an in-depth awareness
program in any respect degree, particularly inside the rural pockets.
1. The best way to foil opportunistic in-law plans is to restrict their access to the home
without the bride's consent and provide her with a reliable way to do so on demand and by
removing the husband and in-laws' right to inherit the land after the wife's death. While such
provisions would go some way toward improving the situation of the bride who brings an
amount of dowry that is deemed appropriate, it is crucial that the provisions regarding
demanding dowry should unequivocally include and cover demands made after marriage and
that the law favors the wife by raising a presumption that any demand for property is justified
to protect women whose dowry is (for whatever reason) considered insufficient and
unsatisfactory.14
2. Under the new BNS, "cruelty" is defined as follows:
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health (whether mental or physical)
of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is
on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 15
13
Dibyangana Nag, The Dowry System in India: an Obstacle to an Egalitarian Society, SCC, 2.3 JCLJ (2022)
1270
14
Nabhya Verma, A Critique of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, 3 JUS CORPUS L.J. 421 (December 2022).
15
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, § 85, Act No.45, Acts of Parliament, 2023(earlier under Indian Penal Code »
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty..
[Link]

12
The relevance of this clause is that "harassment" is all that is required for the crime to
recognize that the committing of the Act, physical abuse of the wife, is not mandatory. Hence,
an "unlawful demand for property or valued security" statement would undoubtedly refer to
dowry demands, so the courts will use the Dowry Prohibition Act to define the offense.
However, as previously mentioned, they have determined that a demand for "property or
valuable security" made following the wedding without a pre-nuptial agreement to transfer
the relevant property is not a demand for dowry if the Act is not changed to specifically
include and label as "illegal" a demand for dowry made for this newly added clause of the
code, while well-intentioned, is likely to be useless the first time after marriage.
3. The definition of the Act should be broadened by encompassing all forms of gifts,
properties, and financial transactions given directly or indirectly at any time. It should also
include proper definitions for disguised dowry forms so there is no room for exploitation.
4. The Act should acknowledge the fact that both men and women can be victims or
perpetrators in dowry-related offenses. There should be equal punishment for offenders under
this Act, irrespective of gender, hence promoting gender equality and fairness. This
suggestion, in this current scenario, may not be feasible because, in India, women have long
been exploited and kept under the feet of men. Hence, some special privileges are necessary
to bring her to a better position in society. However, this suggestion can be considered in a
future wherein women are no longer considered inferior to men, and they no longer face any
gender-based violence.
5. Imposing stringent penalties, including substantial fines and imprisonment, for the giver
receiver and demander of the dowry and allowing the confiscation of assets acquired through
dowry transactions would be a powerful deterrent and would provide restitution to victims,
which would help them to relieve some of their mental pressure.
6. The establishment of dedicated fast-track courts exclusively for dowry-related cases would
ensure swift justice, prevent prolonged legal battles, provide timely relief, and encourage
more victims to seek legal recourse, which might initially be a burden on our legal system but
in the long run would remove the burden on higher courts of justice.
7. By implementing proper whistleblower protection mechanisms, encouraging individuals
to report dowry offenses without fear of retaliation, and establishing anonymous reporting
channels, informants would be confidential and facilitate the reporting process along with
user-friendly mobile applications and online platforms for reporting dowry-related incidents
anonymously.

13
8. Other practical reforms could include utilizing blockchain technology for transparent and
traceable financial transactions and ensuring authenticity and legality in marriage-related
exchanges.
9. Enforcement of mandatory marriage registration, creating an official record of all
marriages, and detailed compulsory documentation of all transactions(financial, property, or
any other) related to the marriage (including gifts given out of affection to the bride or the
bridegroom), including receipts and agreements, would help in the rectification of the
loophole present in section 2 of the Act. The police or the court should have the right to take a
suo moto case by considering the lack of proper documentation as evidence of dowry-related
exchanges, thereby rectifying the legal loophole.
By standing together, India can effectively combat dowry-related practices, ensuring
women's safety, dignity, and societal empowerment.

CONCLUSION

The evaluation of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 highlights the pressing need for
comprehensive reforms in legal provisions and enforcement mechanisms. While the Act
symbolizes a significant milestone in the fight against dowry, its efficacy is hampered by gaps
in implementation and adaptation to changing social norms. The Act should be strengthened
and enforced more strictly, and adjustments should be made periodically to the
circumstances.
A multi-faceted approach is crucial to identify and remove persistent challenges related to
dowry. Enhancements in legal frameworks, such as stricter penalties for dowry-related
offenses and improved mechanisms for reporting and investigation, are essential.
Simultaneously, there is a need for extensive awareness campaigns and educational initiatives
aimed at altering societal mindsets and fostering gender equality.
The wife should own all the properties and gifts given to her at the time of marriage, and
registering these gifts should be compulsory. Changes should also be made in laws that give
women equal rights in parental and marital property. Women should be aware of legal
remedies and their equal rights. At the same time, they should avoid misusing the laws. We
have to accept the bitter truth that the practice cannot be eradicated quickly; the government,
social activists, Non-Governmental Organizations, and the public themselves should come
forward to create awareness through camps, cultural programs, and pamphlets among people

14
about the evils of this practice. Since everyone knows that the legal procedure is time-
consuming and expensive, it may be difficult for the girl's family to spend too much and wait
for long to get justice. Hence, the courts must register the cases and dispense judgment
quickly, as justice delayed is justice denied.16
Dowry is a cultural and social problem that cannot be solved only by law provisions. The
society will also need to interfere in the issue of society at the grassroots level. Ultimately,
eradicating the practice of dowry from our society requires concerted efforts from all of its
stakeholders, including the government, civil society organizations, and society as a whole.
By trying to address the structural and systemic factors that perpetuate dowry, India can move
closer to achieving gender equality and ensuring the safety and dignity of all its citizens.

16
B. Pramila, A CRITIQUE ON DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 196, Proceedings of the Indian History
Congress, 2015, Vol. 76 (2015)

15
 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES

1. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, No.28, Acts of Parliament, 1961

2. The New Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No.45, Acts of Parliament, 2023
3. B. Pramila, A CRITIQUE ON DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961, Proceedings of
the Indian History Congress, 2015, Vol. 76 Pages 846-850(2015)
4. Nabhya Verma, A Critique of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, 3 JUS CORPUS L.J.
421-427 (December 2022).
5. Dibyangana Nag, The Dowry System in India: an Obstacle to an Egalitarian Society,
SCC, 2.3 JCLJ (2022) 1270
6. Mahila Nisha Sharma v. State of M.P., 2012 SCC OnLine MP 6592
7. Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2001) 8 SCC 633
8. Appasaheb & Ors v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/7002/2007
9. Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC 388
10. Rohtash vs. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0483/2012

16