The Impact of Dowry Traditions and the Debate Over Alimony as a Legal Obligation

Marriage, an institution rooted in culture and law, often reflects the values and contradictions of society. In India, two deeply impactful aspects associated with marriage are dowry traditions and alimony obligations. While dowry is a cultural relic that has mutated into a social evil, alimony is a legal provision designed to offer protection and equity in cases of marital breakdown. Both continue to shape the discourse around gender, justice, and family in modern India. Ironically, while dowry is illegal and condemned, it remains culturally entrenched. On the other hand, alimony is legal and protective, yet often contested. Both reflect India's ongoing struggle to balance tradition, law, and modern values.

Dowry reflects a patriarchal mindset that devalues women’s autonomy, while alimony—when fair—seeks to correct the economic imbalance often inherent in traditional marriages. However, misuse on either side creates skepticism and weakens trust in the justice system.

A Thin Line: Where Tradition Ends and Legal Obligation Begins

In India, the sanctity of marriage is bound not only by emotional and familial ties but also by a web of cultural expectations and legal responsibilities. Among the most debated issues are dowry—a traditional practice, and alimony—a legal obligation. At first glance, they seem to occupy opposite ends of the spectrum. But a closer look reveals a thin, often blurred line where social customs and state law intersect, clash, and, at times, even contradict each other.

India’s legal framework has developed with a focus on protecting women because of:

• Centuries of patriarchal practices

• Systemic discrimination

• Vulnerability in domestic, social, and economic spheres

As a result, many laws were enacted to correct historical inequalities, such as:

• Dowry Prohibition Act (1961)

• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005)

• Section 85 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 – Cruelty by husband or in-laws

• Maternity Benefits Act

• Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act (2013)

  Many critics argue that some of these laws are prone to misuse and lack gender neutrality, such as:

  • Section 85 ,86 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita: Criticized for being used in false dowry or harassment claims.

  • Domestic Violence Act: Provides protection only to women.

  • Rape laws: Are not gender-neutral (i.e., only women can be victims under current laws).

  • Alimony and Maintenance: Often assumed that the man must pay, even if the woman is earning.

  These critics suggest that men do not enjoy equivalent legal protection, especially in cases of:

  • False accusations

  • Domestic abuse by women

  • Lack of parental rights (custody often goes to mothers)

  • Workplace harassment (laws focus only on women victims)

  However, data shows that real abuse against women far outweighs instances of misuse—though both deserve attention.

  Are Men's Rights Ignored?

  There is no comprehensive men’s rights commission in India (like the National Commission for Women). Legal frameworks do not currently:

  • Recognize male victims of domestic violence

  • Offer rape protection to men or trans persons

  • Acknowledge male sexual harassment under a formal act

  That said, courts have gradually started recognizing men’s grievances, and some false cases have been penalized. There is a growing demand for:

  • Gender-neutral laws

  • A National Commission for Men

  • Mental health and legal aid for male victims

Recent alimony cases in India have highlighted concerns about the misuse of domestic violence and dowry laws for monetary gain:

A recent unfortunate case of Atul Subhash, a 34-year-old engineer who committed suicide due to alleged harassment by his estranged wife and her family, also brought the spotlight to the alimony amount that the wife quoted: about three crore. In another case, the Hon'ble Bench of the Supreme Court ordered the final settlement of a particular amount of alimony. The petitioner's wife wasn't ready to settle. That irritated the SC bench; it said it was going to dismiss the whole petition, and the wife would have to return the amount she had taken as part of alimony; both parties would need to contest the divorce case in family court. This made the petitioner's wife rethink, apologise, and agree to finish the matter.

This hints at how divorce and alimony matters are being misused to extort extra money, stretching litigations to harass the husband and his family while depriving needy women of their rights. In another recent matter in the Supreme Court, the Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna emphasised a few points in their order. The Bench made it clear that the purpose of giving maintenance to the wife was not to harass the husband. "We want the wife and children to live a respectable life."

The distinction between dowry and alimony lies in their intent and application. Advocate Subhash Dubey says, "Dowry is a precondition for marriage, which leads to the commodification of women and adds to gender inequality. Alimony, on the other hand, is a post-marital provision to ensure financial stability for a spouse who may be disadvantaged by the dissolution of marriage." While the legal provision makes it clear and flexible for women to live dignified lives after the dissolution of marriage, awarding alimony to a working and independent woman without children seems contradictory to the principles of equality. The debate over alimony is multifaceted, touching upon legal principles as well as individual circumstances. However, as more women achieve financial independence, it is crucial to reassess alimony's role to ensure equality and fairness.

The 2025 Supreme Court case of Suman Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh sheds light on a critical issue within India’s legal system: the misuse of dowry and domestic violence laws in matrimonial disputes. This landmark judgment provides crucial guidance on the quashing of First Information Reports (FIRs) under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) when allegations lack prima facie evidence. The Court’s decision underscores the growing concern over the weaponization of criminal proceedings in family disputes, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that protects both the complainant and the accused. The Supreme Court’s verdict in Suman Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh is a crucial precedent in preventing the weaponization of criminal law in matrimonial disputes. While protecting women’s rights is paramount, courts must ensure that legal provisions are not misused to harass innocent individuals. The ruling reinforces judicial prudence in cases where criminal law intersects with personal relationships, setting a strong example for future legal proceedings.

CONCLUSION:

The Need for Balance

The challenge lies not in choosing between tradition and law, but in reconciling them without compromising justice or dignity. The thin line between traditional and legal obligations will remain fraught until:

• Laws are sensitively enforced, without becoming tools of revenge or oppression.

• Traditions are critically examined and reformed, not blindly followed.

• People are educated about their rights and responsibilities in marriage—beyond rituals and courts.

Ultimately, the goal must be to shift from transactional marriages to equitable partnerships—where neither dowry nor alimony becomes a weapon, but both serve the higher purpose of social justice and personal dignity.