DOWRY persists as one of the most regressive social customs, continuing to inflict systemic violence, humiliation and financial burdens on women and their families. Dowry, commonly understood as property, goods or money transferred to the groom or his family at marriage, is not to be confused with bride price, which is a payment made to the bride鈥檚 parents, nor with dower, which is settled on the bride herself by the groom during marriage. According to Werner Menski, three forms of dowry are prevalent in society. The first consists of household items such as furniture, jewellery, or utensils. The second involves extravagant expenditure on weddings to display wealth and status. The third and perhaps the most coercive, is when the amount is determined by the groom鈥檚 family.
It is deeply concerning that despite widespread advocacy of women鈥檚 empowerment across the Global South, including Bangladesh, such detrimental practices persist across all classes. Once confined to wealthier families as symbols of affluence, dowry has now become normalised in all corners of society. Despite decades of legislative reform 鈥� from the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1980 to the Prohibition Act of 2018 and now the 2025 amendment introducing mandatory mediation before court access in dowry-related injury cases 鈥� systemic oppression continues to thrive through loopholes and ambiguities. The real issue lies not in the absence of laws, but in whether they genuinely safeguard women from patriarchal oppression.
The practice of dowry is not simply a materialistic display of affluence but a symbol of misogynistic subjugation that reduces women to commodities in marriage. According to ActionAid Bangladesh and the Jatiya Nari Nirjatan Pratirodh Forum, dowry conflicts accounted for the majority of 1,773 reported incidents of domestic violence. This prevalence demonstrates that despite socio-economic progress, the toxic roots of patriarchy remain intact. The 2018 Act sought to modernise and close gaps left by the 1980 law. It introduced clearer definitions, stricter penalties and made dowry a cognisable offence under Section 7. Yet in practice, reforms have collided with entrenched stigma, weak enforcement and now fresh procedural obstacles.
On July 1, 2025, the Legal Aid Services (Amendment) Ordinance took effect. It mandates that before seeking court intervention, victims of 鈥榮imple hurt鈥� resulting from dowry disputes 鈥� previously tried under the Women and Children Repression (Prevention) Tribunal 鈥� must first undergo mandatory mediation or arbitration facilitated by a legal aid officer. The government has justified this as a mechanism to promote reconciliation, reduce case backlogs and weed out frivolous claims.
In reality, however, this clause risks silencing victims. Delays in seeking justice allow intimidation to intensify and evidence to deteriorate. More troublingly, mediation assumes equal bargaining power, a dangerous presumption when women are often financially, emotionally and physically dependent on their abusers. Even the 2018 act was already weighed down by contradictions; inserting mandatory mediation risks transforming urgent criminal matters into negotiable family disputes.
The Dowry Prohibition Act of 2018 contains several provisions that appear progressive but in practice weaken enforcement. Section 2(b) excludes 鈥榞ifts/presents鈥� from the definition of dowry but fails to define them precisely. This ambiguity permits dowry to be disguised as gifts, legitimising the very conduct the law sought to outlaw. Section 6, the 鈥榝alse case provision,鈥� stipulates identical penalties for those who take dowry and those who file false complaints. Equating these offences ignores the vastly different social consequences. Section 7 compounds the problem by reducing the seriousness of dowry demands through allowing compoundable offences, thereby encouraging out-of-court settlements. Collectively, these ambiguities dilute the law鈥檚 deterrent effect and leave women exposed.
The new amendment, combined with existing loopholes, reflects a disturbing pattern. Mediation may serve a useful role in civil disputes, but its application in dowry-related cases is irrational and potentially harmful. Victims are frequently threatened, economically dependent and socially isolated, making reconciliation coercive rather than empowering. Mandatory mediation further delays access to justice in a system already hampered by under-resourced forensic services. As a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Bangladesh has an obligation to ensure women鈥檚 unhindered access to justice. Imposing mediation as a precondition risks breaching this duty by erecting procedural barriers that weaken survivors鈥� rights.
Mandatory mediation also risks reinforcing patriarchal dynamics in several ways: by denying survivors immediate access to court; by encouraging coercive settlements in male-dominated social contexts; by failing to guarantee safety during and after mediation; by excluding 鈥榮erious harm鈥� from scrutiny; and by burdening overworked legal aid officers without adequate monitoring. Moreover, shifting dowry disputes into quasi-civil arenas amounts to parallel justice, undermining recognition of dowry as a grave criminal offence.
If Bangladesh is serious about eradicating dowry, reforms must be bold, survivor-centred and unequivocal. Mediation, if retained, should be voluntary, not mandatory. Legal definitions of dowry and permissible gifts must be tightened. Penalties for dowry demands should outweigh those for false complaints. Families coerced into paying dowry must receive protection and survivor-friendly procedures must be supported through strengthened police, forensic and legal aid services.
Dowry is not merely a tradition gone astray but a systemic driver of gender-based violence. While legislative reform is essential, introducing mandatory mediation alongside unresolved loopholes in the 2018 Act sends a dangerous signal: that women鈥檚 suffering can be negotiated away in the name of legal efficiency. Reform must mean eliminating ambiguities, dismantling patriarchal bargains and placing women鈥檚 right to justice at the very centre of the legal system.
听
Pinak Sarkar is a lecturer at International Standard University. Era Sharmila Khan is an apprentice lawyer at Dhaka judges court.
