Marriage reduced to ‘commercial transaction’: Supreme Court flags dowry deaths
The Supreme Court condemned dowry-related cruelty, emphasizing judicial deterrence and cancelling bail for a man accused of his wife's dowry death.
The Supreme Court on Friday delivered a scathing denunciation of dowry-related cruelty, lamenting that the “pious bond of marriage has regrettably been reduced to a mere commercial transaction” and warning that the evil of dowry corrodes the sanctity of marriage while perpetuating systemic oppression and subjugation of women.
Coming down heavily on dowry demands and deaths, a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan stressed that a “firm and deterrent judicial response” is imperative to send an unequivocal message that neither law nor society will tolerate such barbarities. The bench cancelled the bail of a man accused of dowry death of his wife in Uttar Pradesh’s Fatehpur district and ordered his immediate arrest.
“Marriage, in its true essence, is a sacred and noble institution founded on mutual trust, companionship and respect. However, in recent times, this pious bond has regrettably been reduced to a mere commercial transaction, the social evil of dowry…has in reality become a means to display social status and satiate material greed,” said the court in its judgment, adding that dowry-driven cruelty or deaths are “an affront to the collective conscience of society.”
Underscoring the broader social consequences, the bench observed that dowry death is not merely an offence against an individual but a crime against society at large. “Such heinous offences strike at the very root of human dignity and violate the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (life and liberty),” the court said, warning that judicial leniency emboldens perpetrators and undermines public confidence in the justice system.
“Judicial passivity or misplaced leniency in the face of such atrocities would only embolden perpetrators… A firm and deterrent judicial response is imperative,” the judgment stated.
The bench cited the alarming rise in dowry death cases and emphasised strict scrutiny in bail matters under Sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It noted that the legislature had created a statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act to combat the menace, which the high court had overlooked while granting bail.
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed by the father of the deceased against the Allahabad High Court’s January 9 order granting bail to her husband. The woman died on June 5, 2023 -- within four months of her marriage.
According to the prosecution, the bride’s family spent approximately ₹22 lakh in cash, items worth ₹10 lakh and jewellery worth ₹15 lakh at the wedding. Soon after, the woman was allegedly subjected to repeated harassment and cruelty for additional dowry, specifically a Fortuner car, and was threatened and abused by her husband and in-laws.
Witnesses, including the victim’s parents and sisters, testified that she had repeatedly confided about physical and mental torture. Her elder sister stated that the victim called her in distress at 1.30am on the night before her death, crying and saying that her husband and relatives had forcibly administered a foul-smelling substance to her. She died hours later despite medical intervention, and post-mortem findings noted an abrasion suggesting restraint.
Despite these allegations, the accused was arrested only after 104 days, reflecting serious investigative lapses, the judgment noted.
The bench held that the high court failed to consider the statutory presumption under Section 113B once the foundational facts of dowry death were established. Instead, it relied on broad principles of bail without examining the nature and gravity of charges, dying declarations, or corroborative testimonies.
Calling the high court order “perverse and unsustainable,” the Supreme Court said it ignored precedent requiring heightened caution in dowry-death bail decisions.
Citing Shabeen Ahmad Vs State of UP (2025), the bench observed that granting bail in the face of strong incriminating material “undermines public faith in the administration of justice and may jeopardise a fair trial.” It added that releasing prime accused at liberty sends a wrong message in crimes that strike at the root of social justice and gender equality.
