The Supreme Court has ruled that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to all properties, gold, and money given by her family or husband before, during, or after marriage, reinforcing financial protection and social justice for women.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the Calcutta High Court’s judgment that denied a divorced Muslim woman the return of gold and money given at the time of her marriage. The bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, emphasized that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, must be interpreted through the lens of social justice, ensuring women’s dignity and financial protection.
Background of the Case
The case involves a divorced Muslim woman (appellant) who sought the return of Rs. 17,67,980, including dower, dowry, 30 bhories of gold ornaments, and furniture, following her divorce. The appellant and the respondent were married on August 28, 2005, and their marriage ended in divorce on December 13, 2011.
The litigation journey included multiple stages:
- Original Trial Court Order (2014): CJM allowed the application, granting Rs. 8.3 lakhs.
- Remand by Sessions Judge: The matter was remanded twice for additional evidence.
- ACJM Order (2017): The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate held the husband liable to return money and gold but rejected the claim for furniture due to insufficient evidence.
- Sessions Court (2018): The ACJM’s order was upheld.
- High Court Judgment (2022): The Calcutta High Court overturned the lower court’s order, treating the dispute as a civil matter rather than under the 1986 Act.
High Court’s Ruling
The High Court’s decision largely relied on discrepancies in the marriage register entries:
- Exhibit 8: Recorded that the bride’s father gave Rs. 7 lakhs and 30 bhories of gold to the son-in-law.
- Exhibit 7: Confirmed the gifts but did not specify that they were given to the groom.
The Marriage Registrar admitted the discrepancy, citing it as an error. However, the High Court favored the father’s claim in separate Section 498A IPC proceedings, despite the husband’s acquittal.
Supreme Court Observations
Justice Sanjay Karol, delivering the judgment, criticized the High Court for ignoring the Marriage Registrar’s testimony and relying solely on civil procedural arguments. The Supreme Court emphasized the following:
- Section 3(1) of the 1986 Act provided that a divorced woman is entitled to all properties given to her before, during, or after marriage by her relatives, friends, or the husband.
- The Daniel Latifi v. Union of India (2001) verdict confirms that the Act overrides other laws to provide fair maintenance and financial security.
- The acquittal in the 498A case does not diminish the evidentiary value of the father’s statement or the registrar’s testimony.
- The High Court erred by treating the case as a civil dispute instead of a social justice adjudication.
The Court highlighted the need for purposive construction of the 1986 Act, focusing on equality, dignity, and autonomy of women. It stressed that courts must consider lived experiences, particularly in rural areas where patriarchal norms still dominate.
“The scope and object of the 1986 Act is concerned with securing the dignity and financial protection of Muslim women post-divorce, which aligns with their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,”
the judgment stated.
The Supreme Court allowed the appellant’s appeal, restoring the trial court’s order to return:
- Rs. 8 lakhs
- 30 bhories of gold
Directions Issued by the Court:
- The appellant must provide the respondent’s counsel with bank details within 3 working days.
- The respondent is directed to remit the amount directly into the appellant’s bank account.
- An affidavit of compliance must be filed with the Supreme Court Registry within six weeks.
- Interest: If payment is delayed, interest at 9% per annum will apply.
Case Title:
ROUSANARA BEGUM VERSUS S.K. SALAHUDDIN @ SK SALAUDDIN & ANR.
Diary No.60854 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports on Maintenance
Click Here to Read More Reports On Muslim Personal Law
