The return of dowry at the end of married life or the possibility of its destruction and sale by the couple is a common and appropriate matter.At the same time, judicial practice, without considering the conditions of the marriage contract and neglecting the moral and criminological effects of returning dowry, only orders the return of dowry upon the wife’s will and request during married life.Apparently, the basis of the judicial practice of the courts in this regard is the possibility of the woman’s immediate withdrawal from the permission to benefit from the dowry and the woman’s voluntary participation in providing alimony. In line with the analysis and criticism of the aforementioned judicial practice, this article first: considers dowry as an independent contract or at least one of the inherent conditions for the realization of marriage to have a distinct and special legal nature that excludes it from the scope of alimony in the general sense. Secondly, it considers the condition of providing dowry for the formation of marriage as a legitimate condition in addition to the contract that requires fulfillment and is continuous and permanent. And thirdly, assuming that the provision of dowry by the woman is voluntary, it considers its return without divorce or fear of life or financial danger for the woman to be contrary to the principle of family strength and raising children and an example of abuse of rights, which moral and criminological teachings also agree with the non-return of dowry, considering the negative repercussions. The method of this article is to present opposing views and pay attention to issues such as the theory of trustworthiness of dowry, the permissibility of conditional possession, and Article 10 of the Civil Code.