Lucknow,

24 May (HS): Despite being declared illegal in India as early as 1961, dowry

continues to persist as a deeply rooted social evil. The Dowry Prohibition Act,

Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Domestic Violence Act, 2005

provide a legal framework against it. Yet, according to National Crime Records

Bureau data, 5,737 dowry deaths were reported in 2024, meaning nearly 15–16

women die every day due to dowry-related violence, harassment, or suicide. What

is even more alarming is the shift in its nature: dowry is no longer limited to

rural or uneducated sections of society. It is now increasingly visible in

educated urban families of doctors, engineers, lawyers, MBAs, and academicians.

Education has not eliminated dowry; instead, it has transformed it into a more

refined, expensive, and socially normalized practice.

Recent

cases over the past year highlight this disturbing reality. In Bhopal,

33-year-old Twisha Sharma, a former model and actress, died under suspicious

circumstances in May 2026. Her husband is a lawyer and her mother-in-law a

retired judge, yet the family alleged dowry harassment and mental torture. The

Supreme Court even took suo motu cognizance of the case, raising concerns about

institutional bias and procedural lapses, while early police response attempted

to frame it as depression or substance abuse. Similarly, in Greater Noida,

25-year-old Deepika Nagar died after falling from a roof just 17 months into

her marriage, with her family alleging continuous dowry harassment. In West

Delhi, Veena Kumari’s final phone call to her brother—saying she was being

harassed—was followed by her death within minutes, while her family claimed

that demands for additional luxury items continued even after providing

substantial gifts at marriage. In Pune, Vaishnavi Hagawane’s suspicious death

sparked allegations of severe dowry-related abuse, prompting the National

Commission for Women to seek a detailed police report. In Bengaluru, a young

lecturer, Pushpavati, ended her life after documenting dowry harassment and

mental violence in a video message. Across all these cases, a common thread

emerges: the victims were educated, financially active, and living in urban

environments, yet they remained vulnerable to dowry-driven abuse.

The

question then arises—why is dowry still increasing in educated families? One

major reason is the commodification of marriage itself. Education, rather than

eliminating dowry, has in many cases increased its “market value.” Graduates

from institutions like IITs and IIMs, or individuals settled abroad, are often

assigned a social price tag. Families begin to view their son’s education as an

investment that must be “recovered” through marriage. This transforms dowry

into a calculated economic exchange rather than a cultural practice.

Closely

linked to this is the rise of marriage as a status symbol. In urban India,

weddings have become displays of wealth and social prestige. Destination

weddings, luxury gifts, branded goods, and expensive cars are increasingly

normalized. Families that do not conform to these expectations are often

perceived as socially inferior, further intensifying dowry pressure.

Another

factor is the treatment of a woman’s income as a resource for the marital

household. In many cases, an earning woman’s salary is indirectly controlled or

redirected towards household expenses, loans, or family obligations.

Psychological pressure is often used to normalize this financial control,

reducing her autonomy despite her economic independence.

Weak

enforcement of laws further worsens the situation. Although the legal framework

exists, implementation remains inconsistent. The Dowry Prohibition Act

prescribes relatively minor punishment, and cases often drag on for years.

Evidence is frequently lost, witnesses turn hostile, and initial police

responses tend to dismiss cases as “domestic disputes.” In several instances,

even strong medical or forensic evidence is not acted upon promptly, weakening

justice delivery.

Social

and familial pressure also plays a crucial role. The fear of “what will people

say” and concerns about reputation often force families to remain silent or

push women to “adjust.” Early signs of abuse are normalized as part of marital

adjustment, preventing timely intervention and worsening the situation.

A

deeper question remains: why are educated and financially independent women

still unable to escape such violence? One key reason is emotional conditioning.

From a young age, women are taught that maintaining a marriage is their

responsibility and that separation represents failure. This creates emotional

entrapment, where suffering is normalized in the hope that things will improve.

Financial

independence also does not always translate into real autonomy. Many women do

not have control over their earnings, savings, or assets, making it difficult

to leave abusive environments. Without a strong financial backup, separation

becomes practically and emotionally difficult.

Family

response further complicates the issue. Instead of immediate support, women are

often advised to “adjust,” which discourages them from taking firm action.

Informal systems like panchayats also tend to prioritize compromise over

accountability, often placing pressure on the woman to remain in the marriage.

Mental

health stigma adds another barrier. Symptoms of depression or anxiety are

frequently dismissed as exaggeration, weakening both emotional support and

legal credibility. Alongside this, the fear of prolonged legal procedures,

police questioning, and social stigma keeps many victims silent.

At

a structural level, dowry today includes not just cash or gold but cars,

property, foreign trips, and business investments. Deep cultural beliefs such

as “a son carries the lineage, a daughter belongs to another family” continue

to reinforce inequality. Psychologically, abusive partners often cycle between

apology and repeated violence, trapping victims in a cycle of hope.

Institutionally, early negligence by authorities allows cases to weaken over

time.

Addressing

this issue requires a multi-layered response. Legally, dowry death cases must

be fast-tracked, and electronic evidence such as calls, messages, and digital

records must be preserved immediately. Socially, there must be strong stigma

against dowry-giving and receiving, along with public commitment from young men

to reject dowry. Economically, families must secure daughters through property

rights, financial assets, and institutional support systems like shelter homes

and legal aid centers. Educational institutions must integrate gender equality,

consent, legal awareness, and mental health education into curricula to create

long-term change. On an individual level, women must be encouraged from an

early age to prioritize self-respect and seek immediate help through helplines

like 181 and Tele-MANAS 14416 when faced with violence.

Ultimately,

the persistence of dowry in educated families proves that education alone is

not enough to dismantle deep-rooted social practices. Unless education is

accompanied by ethical responsibility, legal enforcement, and social

accountability, such tragedies will continue to claim lives.

Dowry

deaths are not merely individual tragedies; they represent a collective moral

and institutional failure. The solution lies not only in courts and laws, but

within homes, schools, and societal attitudes. When families treat daughters

equally, when young men openly reject dowry, and when society begins to shame

dowry instead of normalizing it, only then can meaningful change begin. Until

then, helplines such as 181 and Tele-MANAS 14416 remain vital lifelines.

Breaking the silence is the first and most important step toward justice and

change.

Hindusthan Samachar / Abhishek Awasthi