Dowry givers too should be prosecuted - Delhi Court

I am fully against giving or accepting dowry. But I somehow feel that there is a bit of hypocrisy in this judgment as I am sure even the judge must have seen marriages built on dowry in her relatives, friends or neighborhood. I would have been at ease only if this rule is enforced more strictly in all marriages.

On the other hand I feel this is a great judgment as both the families are equally responsible for this mess and should be prosecuted for violating the law.

Source article

 

Zingy, Indian law prohibits both giving or receiving of dowry. But Indian marriages being private affairs and the fact that there is tacit acceptance in the society for this unethical practice, this law is rarely enforced. More often, the fact that dowry was demanded or paid, comes out when things fall out during or after marriage. If everything works fine no one even mentions that such a thing happened.

People justify about dowry in several ways:

1. Taking dowry for a male child to pay off for the marriage expenses or the fact that he has sisters to be married off with dowry themselves.

2. Justifying, the concept of dowry as being practical and worldly and discounting those who oppose it being immature trouble makers or as having not seen enough of world - this happened in my case but I didn't budge and had my way

3. Paying dowry to compensate for the difference in education levels, accomplishments (or the fact that the groom is a NRI) between the bride and groom

4. Parents having only girl children justify as everything after them is the girl's, so they don't mind contributing part of her share as dowry.

5. Several example of marriages of relatives or friends that had dowry as contributing factor were successful. This may be true in specific cases but there is no proof that dowry helps making marriage a success

6. Even when no demand are made the parents who can afford, do leave no stone unturned in arranging a decent marriage with the keen desire to earn a lasting name in society. The extravaganza of marriage is only to be matched with an equally extravagant dowry in form of pricey gifts, property and cash.

7. I have seen some guys (funny to see guys getting concerned!) explaining that if they didn't take dowry, the parents of the girl deprive the girl of her "rightful" share of her inheritance and the inheritance would then go to her male siblings.

I think, that it needs a phenomenal change in peoples attitude in the way the perceive marriage as an institution. They should come to accept that a marriage involves equal partnership and neither the groom nor bride need to bring anything extra to make it work.

 

I don't accept blaming the groom alone here - the gifts are contributed for the bride too and she tacitly accepted these presents for her own reasons. She is concerned about her marriage only and it was acceptable and reasonable to her that her husbands wishes are taken care of, regardless of the fact that they both have careers that would allow them buy all this stuff. The feeling here is like even if one earn in lacs, one would stop his car to pick a 10 rupee note lying on road side. Also there may have been any of the dynamics that I listed in my above note at play.

 

Very sensible.

I already know few cases where both bride and groom families contributed equally in the marriage expenses. I agree with you that if the groom and bride are well settled in their careers, they should insist to bear their marriage expenses themselves. I hope we will see these kind of marriages more in the future.