In recent years, mahrieh (marital dowry) has become a topic of contention and dispute both in Iranian society and within the domains of policymaking and legislation. The culturally widespread trend of setting exorbitant mahrieh amounts has led lawmakers and the Iranian judiciary to pursue policies aimed at reducing legal and judicial support for mahrieh. However, there is considerable skepticism regarding the good intentions of the responsible authorities, particularly given their patriarchal attitudes toward women-related laws.

Several years ago, a law was passed stipulating that only up to “110 gold coins” of mahrieh would be subject to enforcement under the Law on Enforcement of Financial Judgments. This law states that if someone is legally required to pay a debt and fails to do so, they may be detained. Since mahrieh is considered a debt, it falls under this law. However, the legislators decided that regardless of the total amount of mahrieh, only 110 gold coins would be eligible for criminal enforcement, and women must identify assets belonging to their husbands to claim any amount beyond that.

In a subsequent step, the judiciary began to more strictly enforce court fees for mahrieh claims, which has effectively forced women to incur significant expenses in pursuing their claims. Judicial practices have also encouraged women to waive their mahrieh in exchange for divorce.

According to judgments issued by family courts, if a woman gives up all or a significant portion of her mahrieh and other financial rights, it is taken as a sign that she feels strong aversion toward her husband and is in a state of ‘osr va haraj’ (extreme hardship). Therefore, she may be granted a unilateral divorce. It is worth noting that ‘osr va haraj’ refers to unbearable hardship, and Article 1130 of Iran’s Civil Code outlines some of its examples. In practice, while the law and legal procedures cannot limit the amount of mahrieh, they have sought to make its collection more difficult and, at the same time, incentivize women to forgo it. In essence, a policy of “My mahr is yours, my life is free” has been adopted.

In line with this policy, a bill currently under review in the Iranian Parliament proposes reducing the enforceable ceiling of mahrieh from “110 coins” to “14 coins.” Furthermore, the act of waiving mahrieh would itself be considered proof of ‘osr va haraj’ (extreme hardship) for the woman. If passed, this bill would mean that women could only seek criminal enforcement (such as the arrest of their husbands) for up to 14 coins under the Law on Enforcement of Financial Judgments.

Supporters of this bill argue that the existence of over two thousand mahrieh-related prisoners in the country justifies this legislative change. They also appear to believe that high mahrieh amounts contribute to family breakdowns. In contrast, women’s rights activists argue that mahrieh is a tool that allows women to maintain balance within the family structure—because family laws in Iran overwhelmingly discriminate against women. If mahrieh loses its effectiveness, women will face even more discrimination.

It is important to note that, under Western legal systems, imprisonment for unpaid debts is considered a violation of human rights. Article 1 of Protocol No. 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights explicitly prohibits imprisonment for failing to fulfill a contractual obligation. Therefore, signatory governments to the convention are categorically prohibited from imprisoning individuals for unpaid debts. The same standard applies in several other countries, such as the United States and Canada. Since marriage is a contract and mahrieh a debt, it must be said that detaining individuals for unpaid mahrieh is contrary to human rights standards. This issue extends beyond mahrieh and applies to all forms of debt.

From this perspective, restricting the ability to detain individuals over unpaid mahrieh may be seen as a positive step. However, it is also crucial to recognize that many other aspects of Iranian family law require serious review and alignment with contemporary needs. Additionally, the cultural trend of setting astronomical mahrieh amounts in Iranian families does not seem to be motivated by a desire to establish gender balance. Rather, mahrieh has become a cultural phenomenon and, in practice, cannot resolve the existing gender-based discriminations—especially since men’s claims of financial inability (‘esaar’) to pay mahrieh are often accepted, allowing them to pay in installments.

Moreover, because women lack the right to initiate divorce, a man may refuse to grant a divorce and leave his wife in legal limbo for years, while even receiving court permission to remarry.

All of these factors lead to the conclusion that mahrieh is not an effective tool for establishing balance within families. A better alternative may lie in the use of contractual stipulations at the time of marriage to achieve greater equality. Under Iranian civil law, men have the legal right to decide the family residence, women require their husband’s permission to leave the country, men can prohibit their wives from working, men possess the unilateral right to divorce, and women must prove ‘osr va haraj’ to obtain one. Men are also considered heads of households, and women are legally obligated to obey their husbands. The vast majority of these discriminatory provisions can be addressed through prenuptial stipulations.

For example, a woman may obtain a power of attorney for divorce, which would allow her to petition the court and dissolve the marriage without her husband’s consent or the need to present justifications. As for financial rights, the best approach is to include a clause that provides for the equal division of marital assets. This stipulation would ensure that all assets accumulated during the marriage are equally divided upon divorce—eliminating much of the hardship associated with claiming mahrieh.

In any case, serious legal reforms do not appear likely under the current system. However, efforts should still be made to ensure that even minor changes conform to human rights standards, and that the existing legal framework is used to its fullest extent to reduce discrimination embedded in the country’s laws.