Published Feb 03, 2026 | 10:12 AM ⚊ Updated Feb 03, 2026 | 1:03 PM
A bride wearing gold ornaments. (iStock)
Synopsis: An ongoing PIL before the Kerala High Court cast fresh scrutiny on India’s anti-dowry framework, particularly the criminalisation of those who give dowry under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petition sought the decriminalisation of the act of giving dowry and calls for amendments to Section 3 of the Act, which currently prescribes penalties for both giving and taking dowry.
Does a law meant to stamp out dowry end up silencing its victims instead? That unsettling question has landed before the Kerala High Court, as a public interest litigation (PIL) reopened debate on one of India’s most stringent social legislations.
With the state flagging a possible overhaul of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, a six-decade-old law is now being tested against the current realities of reporting, fear and justice.
At the heart of the proceedings lies a fundamental question: Should the law continue to treat victims as offenders, or should its focus shift entirely to those who demand and profit from dowry?
An ongoing PIL before the Kerala High Court cast fresh scrutiny on India’s anti-dowry framework, particularly the criminalisation of those who give dowry under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The petition sought the decriminalisation of the act of giving dowry and calls for amendments to Section 3 of the Act, which currently prescribes penalties for both giving and taking dowry.
It was in July 2025 that a 29-year-old Ernakulam native, Tellmy Jolly, approached the high court, arguing that penalising dowry givers has effectively become a shield for abusers.
The petition pointed out that victims and their families hesitate to approach law enforcement, anticipating that they themselves may be implicated for giving dowry under coercion or social pressure.
And on 21 January, during the hearing, the Kerala government indicated that it is considering a significant legal shift aimed at making the law more victim-centric.
Supporting this stance, it also pointed out a draft amendment submitted by the Kerala Law Reforms Commission, which proposes that only those who demand or receive dowry should face criminal liability.
The draft seeks to redefine dowry as property or valuable security demanded or taken by the bridegroom or his relatives from the bride or her family, while retaining imprisonment and penalties for such acts.
The state argued that prosecuting the dowry giver — who is often the victim or a close family member — discourages complaints and forces families into silence due to fear of self-incrimination. According to the government, this unintended consequence undermines the very objective of the law, which is to prevent dowry-related exploitation and abuse.
The Union government, however, opposed the proposed change, maintaining that there is nothing unconstitutional about the existing provisions of the Act, including Section 3. It contended that the current legal framework adequately addresses dowry-related offences and does not warrant dilution.
Adding another layer, advocate Thulasi K Raj, counsel for petitioner Tellmy Jolly, told South First that the PIL has challenged the constitutionality of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pointing out that penalising dowry givers — often victims or their families — has discouraged reporting due to fear of self-incrimination.
As the high court issued notice to the Union government, the case has sparked a wider debate on whether India’s anti-dowry law, enacted over 60 years ago, requires recalibration to reflect lived realities.
The court will consider the matter again on 11 February.
The State Law Reforms Commission’s reasoning for proposing amendments to the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is rooted in the hard social realities surrounding dowry-related crimes.
It stated that despite the enactment of the law more than six decades ago and repeated amendments by Parliament and several states, dowry continues to be a deeply entrenched and violent social evil.
“Women across the country, including in Kerala, continue to face brutal forms of physical and mental cruelty — ranging from beatings and starvation to strangulation, burning and even forced suicides—when dowry demands are not met,” it remarked in the statement of objects and reasons part of The Dowry Prohibition (Kerala Amendment) Bill, 2025.
A key flaw identified by the Commission lies in the existing legal framework itself.
Since giving dowry is treated as an offence on par with taking dowry, the bride or her parents, who are technically offenders under the Act, are discouraged from approaching the authorities.
Fear of social stigma and further victimisation of the woman after marriage further compounds this reluctance, resulting in large-scale under-reporting of offences. The Commission therefore found it unrealistic to expect victims to initiate legal action under the present structure.
To address this, it has proposed restricting the definition of dowry to the act of taking dowry alone, thereby removing the legal disincentive faced by victims.
The proposed amendments also aim to enhance punishment, ensure compensation reaches the victim or her legal heirs, and introduce penal provisions against deprivation of marital rights, thereby strengthening enforcement and restoring the protective intent of the law through the Dowry Prohibition (State Amendment) Bill, 2025.
Responding to a query on whether a state can legislate on a law enacted by Parliament, advocate Thulasi pointed out that matters relating to marriage and adoption fall under the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
This, she explained, gives both the Union and the States the authority to frame laws on these subjects.
While the Concurrent List seeks to maintain a degree of uniformity, it also leaves room for states to accommodate local realities.
In that sense, she said, a state can indeed bring in amendments within its legislative competence. However, she added that the petitioner’s concern goes beyond isolated state-level changes.
Given the broader implications involved, Thulasi maintained that it is ultimately for the Union Government to take the lead and bring about amendments to the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Under the central law, the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, dowry is defined as any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given, either directly or indirectly, by either party to a marriage, their parents, or any other person, to the other party or any related person, in connection with the marriage.
The emphasis is on both giving and taking dowry, irrespective of who initiates the transaction.
In contrast, the Dowry Prohibition (Kerala Amendment) Bill, 2025, proposes a significant narrowing of focus.
The state seeks to redefine dowry as property or valuable security taken or agreed to be taken by the bridegroom or his relatives, specifically from the bride, her parents, or relatives, before, at, or after the marriage.
By doing so, the proposed definition shifts the lens firmly onto the demand side of dowry, treating the bride and her family exclusively as victims, and the bridegroom’s side as offenders.
A similar divergence is visible in the penal provisions.
Under Section 3 of the central Act, the law criminalises both giving and taking of dowry, prescribing a minimum imprisonment of five years, along with a fine of not less than ₹15,000 or the value of the dowry, whichever is higher.
The Kerala amendment, however, proposes to remove criminal liability for giving dowry and limits punishment only to taking or abetting the taking of dowry.
The proposed punishment is imprisonment ranging from three to seven years, along with a substantially higher fine, starting from ₹50,000 and extending up to ₹1 lakh, or the value of the dowry, whichever is higher.
While the minimum jail term is lower than that under the central law, the financial penalty is markedly enhanced.
With regard to Section 4, which deals with demanding dowry, the state Bill does not alter the offence itself but seeks to increase the maximum fine from ₹10,000 under the central Act to ₹50,000, signalling a tougher financial deterrent against dowry demands.
One of the most notable additions in the Kerala Bill is the proposed Section 4A, which has no counterpart in the central legislation. This new provision introduces a specific offence for depriving a wife of her marital rights and privileges due to non-payment of dowry.
It criminalises post-marital cruelty, torture, or refusal to maintain the wife linked to dowry demands, prescribing imprisonment of up to two years and a fine of up to ₹25,000.
Despite its reputation as a state of high literacy and progressive social values, Kerala continues to grapple with the grim reality of dowry-related harassment and deaths. The contrast is stark and disturbing.
The horror only deepened with the 2020 murder of Uthra, also from Kollam, whose husband killed her using a cobra, driven by greed for her dowry, assets and insurance benefits.
Then came the case of Vismaya V Nair, a young Ayurveda student from Kollam who died in June 2021 after allegedly being assaulted over dowry demands, exposing how deeply entrenched the practice remains. Before her death, Vismaya had shared chilling evidence of abuse, including injuries linked to dissatisfaction over the car given as dowry.
Earlier, in 2019, Thushara, a 28-year-old woman, died after being allegedly starved and tortured for additional dowry, reduced to just 21 kg. A Kerala court convicted her husband and mother-in-law in 2025, calling it extreme cruelty.
Official data underline the gravity of the issue: Kerala Police recorded 43 dowry deaths between 2020 and November 2025.
Alarmed by the trend, the Kerala State Women’s Commission has urged the government to regulate wedding expenses and strictly enforce the Dowry Prohibition Act. It has proposed mandatory disclosure of marriage expenses to District Dowry Prohibition Officers and monitoring by local bodies.
In August 2025, the state Department of Women and Child Development introduced a dedicated online platform, aimed at simplifying the process of registering dowry-related complaints.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
