Dowry Deaths : How Supreme Court Has Repeatedly Raised Concerns Over Continuing Dowry Menace

The death of Twisha Sharma in Bhopal, which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu cognisance of allegations of institutional bias and procedural lapses and a CBI investigation, and the death of Deepika Nagar in Greater Noida amid allegations of dowry harassment have once again brought public attention to the issue of deaths of married women in their matrimonial homes.

Even as investigations in these cases continue, the Supreme Court, over the past two years, has delivered a number of significant rulings on how Courts should deal with cases involving dowry deaths and domestic cruelty.

Broadly, these judgment highlight three themes –

i) Courts must exercise extreme caution while granting bail in dowry death cases.

ii) Statutory presumption in favour of the prosecution plays a critical role where a woman dies unnaturally within seven years of marriage.

iii) Despite legal reforms, dowry remains deeply entrenched in Indian society.

Bail in dowry death cases

In recent decisions, the Supreme Court has emphasised that courts should not mechanically grant bail in dowry death cases.

In Mahesh Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 452, the Court cancelled the bail granted to a husband accused in a dowry death case. A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi described dowry deaths as a serious social problem and held that courts must be careful that bail orders do not create an impression that crimes against women are being treated lightly.

The Court stressed that where a woman dies in her matrimonial home within seven years of marriage and there are allegations of dowry harassment, courts must keep in mind Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which corresponds to the earlier Section 113B of the Evidence Act.

The same bench took a similar approach in Chetram Verma v. State of U.P., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 141, and Lal Muni Devi v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 298. In both cases, it criticised High Court orders granting bail without adequately considering the seriousness of the allegations, post-mortem findings and the statutory presumption relating to dowry deaths.

In Chetram Verma, the Court described the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail as one of the most shocking and disappointing bail orders it had seen. It observed that a court deciding bail in a dowry death case must consider the nature of the offence, the punishment prescribed, the relationship between the accused and the deceased, the place of occurrence, the medical evidence and the statutory presumption under Section 118 BSA.

Similarly, in Shabeen Ahmed v State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 278, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to a father-in-law and mother-in-law. The Court observed that when a young bride dies under suspicious circumstances within a short period of marriage, the judiciary must display heightened vigilance. It warned that granting bail despite evidence suggesting direct involvement in dowry harassment and violence could undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Evidentiary principles in dowry death cases

The Supreme Court in its decisions has repeatedly emphasised on the statutory presumptions applicable in dowry death cases.

Under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, previously Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, the court may presume that a husband or his relatives caused a dowry death if it is shown that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death and the death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage.

The presumption does not automatically establish guilt. However, once foundational facts are proved, it places a burden on the accused to rebut the presumption.

The Supreme Court repeatedly faulted High Courts for ignoring this provision while granting bail (in Yogendra Pal Singh v. Raghvendra Singh @ Prince, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1150, Chetram Verma v. State of UP, and Lal Muni Devi v. State of Bihar). It has held that the presumption becomes especially relevant where medical evidence points towards strangulation, physical injuries or other suspicious circumstances.

The Court has also clarified how convictions can be sustained in cases involving deaths inside matrimonial homes.

In Gour Acharjee v. State of Tripura & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 538, the Court upheld the conviction of a husband for murder and cruelty after finding that the death was homicidal and not suicidal.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan relied on medical evidence showing multiple ante-mortem injuries and the absence of signs typically associated with suicidal hanging.

The judgment also highlighted the importance of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The Court explained that once the prosecution establishes that the death was homicidal and occurred inside the matrimonial home, the inmates of the house must offer a plausible explanation. The husband's failure to explain the injuries on the deceased became an additional incriminating circumstance.

Dowry prohibition law is not unconstitutional because some cases are misused

Another important aspect of the Court's recent judgments concerns allegations that Section 498A IPC is frequently misused. The Court has also repeatedly acknowledged concerns about misuse of Section 498A IPC (now Section 85 BNS) and other matrimonial laws.

In several recent decisions, it has cautioned against the tendency to implicate the husband's relatives through vague or omnibus allegations and has stressed that criminal law should not be used as a weapon in ordinary matrimonial disputes.

The Court has distinguished these concerns from dowry death prosecutions. In Janshruti (People's Voice) v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 464, a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 498A IPC, now reflected in Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The Court acknowledged that there may be instances of misuse. However, it observed that for every instance of misuse, there are likely hundreds of genuine cases where the provision serves as a vital safeguard against domestic cruelty.

The Court also noted that dowry remains a deeply entrenched social evil and many instances of abuse go unreported. It held that occasional misuse cannot justify striking down a law enacted to protect women.

Thus, while the Court has recognised concerns about misuse in matrimonial litigation, it has simultaneously emphasised that dowry deaths remain a serious social problem requiring a firm judicial response.

Protection for women who complain about dowry demands

In Rahul Gupta v Station House Officer & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 381, a husband sought criminal action against his wife and her family for allegedly “giving” dowry because they had referred to dowry payments in their complaint against him.

Rejecting the argument, a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran relied on Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act and held that statements made by an aggrieved woman and her family while complaining about dowry demands cannot be used as the basis for prosecuting them for giving dowry.

The Court clarified that prosecution may still be possible if there is independent evidence of dowry-giving, but not where the only basis is the complaint lodged by the victim.

Supreme Court's broader concern: Dowry remains a social evil

The Supreme Court in its judgments has gone beyond individual criminal cases and addressed the social roots of dowry.

In Mahesh Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court observed that dowry deaths continue to be a serious problem in some sections of society, particularly in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Karnataka. The Court lamented that despite improvements in education and greater opportunities for women, dowry demands continue even after marriage.

The Court highlighted NCRB figures showing that 6,156 people lost their lives in dowry death cases in 2023. Uttar Pradesh recorded 2,122 such deaths, while Bihar recorded 1,143. The Court also noted that dowry was cited as the motive in 833 murder cases across the country in the same year.

The Court described how dowry demands often escalate after marriage as many families do not make substantial demands before the wedding but begin exerting pressure once the marriage is formalised, believing that the bride's family will have little choice but to comply.

In State of U.P. v. Ajmal Beg, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1209, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh the Court traced the historical evolution of dowry and examined why it continues despite being prohibited by law.

It discussed the role of hypergamy, or the practice of marrying daughters into families perceived to have a higher social status. The Court noted that gradually, this transformed dowry into a “groom-price” system, where the amount demanded is linked to the groom's education, employment and social standing.

The Court observed that the practice reflects a systemic undervaluation of women. It noted that a woman's worth in the marriage market is often measured by the dowry she brings rather than by her own identity and capabilities.

The Court noted that that while Islamic law recognises mehr as a mandatory payment from the husband to the wife, dowry has increasingly entered Muslim marriage practices through social and economic influences. As a result, nominal mehr and substantial dowry often coexist, undermining the protective function that mehr was intended to serve.

The same judgment resulted in a series of nationwide directions. The Court asked governments to consider educational reforms promoting equality within marriage, ensure effective appointment of Dowry Prohibition Officers, provide specialised training to police and judicial officers, and review pending dowry death and cruelty cases for expeditious disposal.

In Yogendra Pal Singh v. Raghvendra Singh @ Prince, a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan observed that marriage has increasingly been reduced to a commercial transaction because of dowry and a firm judicial response is necessary in dowry death cases. It said that dowry deaths are the most abhorrent forms of

Patriarchy and domestic violence

In Shankar v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 324, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh noted that despite constitutional guarantees of equality and decades of legal reforms, dowry harassment, domestic violence and gender-based crimes are widespread. The It is a paradox, the Court said, that while legal progress exists on paper, violence against women persists in practice.

The Court observed that patriarchy continues to shape everyday life, particularly in rural and semi-urban India, where authority within households is overwhelmingly male. Welfare schemes and legislative reforms, the Court said, may encourage change but cannot by themselves alter deeply rooted beliefs about women's roles within marriage and family.

The judgment ended with a question – after decades of laws, reforms and judicial interventions, why does control over women's bodies, choices and lives continue to persist so deeply in society?

In Gour Acharjee v. State of Tripura & Ors., the Court highlighted another recurring feature of dowry and domestic violence cases. The Court noted that the deceased repeatedly complained of abuse and harassment but was repeatedly sent back to her matrimonial home after efforts at compromise by relatives and village elders.

Calling her story an eye-opener, the Court warned against ignoring signs of abuse and assuming that matters will improve with time.

Viewed together, the Supreme Court's recent decisions reveal a position that dowry deaths are not ordinary criminal cases. Bail cannot be granted mechanically where serious allegations and prima facie evidence exist. At the same time, the Court has emphasised that domestic cruelty laws remain necessary because dowry continues to be a widespread social reality.