Dowry: Why Does It Still Exist in 2026?

Whether it is last year’s Vaishnavi Hagawane case or this year’s Twisha Sharma case, the first question that should come to our minds is: why is dowry still a part of our society in 2026?

In Vaishnavi’s case, it was reportedly a love marriage. Yet, the images of a car being gifted during the wedding once again forced society to confront an uncomfortable reality — why do we still normalize gifting cars, jewellery, cash, and expensive items in marriages?

This practice is often wrongly defended as “tradition.” But the truth is, the present-day dowry system is not tradition; it is a social system that society itself has nurtured and normalized over time.

Historically, gifts given to a woman at the time of marriage were intended to provide her with financial security and independence. These voluntary gifts formed part of her streedhan. However, over the years, what was once voluntary became coercive. Gifts transformed into expectations, and expectations turned into illegal demands.

Under Hindu law, a woman is the absolute owner of her streedhan. If she is deprived of it, she has legal remedies available to reclaim it. Streedhan includes jewellery, money, gifts, and valuables voluntarily given to her during marriage or on special occasions in her life.

Dowry, however, is entirely different.

Dowry refers to any property or valuable security demanded or given in connection with marriage by the groom’s side. Such demands are illegal under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which criminalizes the giving, taking, or demanding of dowry.

Further, when a woman dies an unnatural death within seven years of marriage, and it is proven that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment related to dowry demands, serious criminal liability can arise under Indian law.

This raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: are highly educated families truly unaware of the line between voluntary gifts and dowry?

To understand the complexity of the issue, one must also remember the famous 2003 Nisha Sharma dowry case.

The Nisha Sharma Case: A Different Side of the Debate

In November 2003, Noida resident Nisha Sharma called off her wedding to Munish Dalal just hours before the ceremony, alleging that the groom’s family had made last-minute dowry demands, including a car and cash.

The case received massive media attention. Nisha Sharma was celebrated nationally as a symbol of female empowerment and resistance against dowry.

Following her complaint, the groom, his mother, and his aunt were arrested. However, during the trial, the defence argued that the allegations were fabricated to avoid the arranged marriage.

The accused family underwent years of litigation, financial hardship, and social stigma. Eventually, in March 2012, nearly a decade later, a Noida court acquitted all the accused due to lack of strong evidence. The court observed that the allegations appeared to have been falsely manufactured.

The case later became one of the most discussed examples in debates surrounding the alleged misuse of anti-dowry laws, particularly Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

The reason for mentioning this case is not to weaken genuine complaints of dowry harassment. Genuine victims deserve protection and justice.

However, misuse of the law and complete silence against unlawful demands — both are dangerous.

If, in today’s era, women are increasingly choosing their own partners and exercising personal choice in marriage, then society must also ask:

What still prevents many from saying “no” to dowry demands?

What stops families from walking away from relationships built on financial expectations?

The answer perhaps lies not only in law, but also in social conditioning, fear of societal judgment, family pressure, and the normalization of “status-based gifting.”

Until society stops glorifying extravagant marriage exchanges and starts clearly distinguishing between voluntary gifts and coercive demands, dowry will continue to survive under different names.

Justice cannot become easier merely by increasing laws or by misusing them. Real change will only come when society itself refuses to participate in the system.