Groom kidnapping
Kidnapping men for marriage
Groom kidnapping, colloquially known as Pakaruah shaadi or Jabaria shaadi, is a phenomenon in Bihar, more prominent in Munger and Dumka (now in Jharkhand) wherein unmarried men are abducted by the bride's family and later forcibly married, to get men with better education or wealth. Considering the traditional regard for the marriage sacrament, most such marriages are not annulled. Additionally, the groom may face false criminal charges under Indian dowry law, and end up fighting lengthy legal battles.
The practice became noticeable towards the late 20th century, as dowry costs became prohibitive and organised gangs came forward to carry out the abductions. In 2009, 1224 kidnappings for marriage were reported in Bihar, carried out on behalf of the families of the brides.
Overview
The practice, which is a fallout of the dowry custom, first came to light in the 1980s. It has since gained social sanction among the upper castes like the Bhumihars, particularly in states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, where dowry demands are high. Demanding a dowry has been illegal in India for over 50 years, since the passage of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961.
In the practice, potential bridegrooms, usually from well-off families, are targeted. Young men who have either cleared their IAS exams, have a medical or engineering degree or have secured a government job, are targeted by families who can’t afford huge dowries.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Groom kidnapping” is kidnapping men for marriage. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Groom, kidnapping and Kidnapping, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “kidnapping men for marriage” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 24, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5610264. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2009, 1224 and 1961.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Groom kidnapping”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Groom kidnapping primary sources, Groom kidnapping archive and Groom research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Groom kidnapping”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Groom kidnapping” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.