Supreme Court reinforces women’s ownership of ‘stridhan’, restricting husband’s authority. Husband directed to compensate Rs 25 lakh.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has reiterated the principle that a husband has no control over his wife’s ‘stridhan’ or woman’s property. The court emphasized that while a husband may use his wife’s stridhan during times of distress, he has a moral obligation to return it to her. The judgment came as the court directed a man to pay Rs 25 lakh to his wife as compensation for the loss of her gold.
The case involved a woman who claimed that her family had gifted her 89 pieces of gold coins at the time of her marriage. Additionally, her father had given a cheque of Rs 2 lakh to her husband after the wedding.
However, on the first night of their marriage, the husband took custody of all her jewellery and entrusted it to his mother for safekeeping. The woman alleged that both her husband and his mother misappropriated the jewellery to fulfill their pre-existing financial liabilities.
Initially, the family court ruled in favor of the woman, stating that the husband and his mother had indeed misappropriated her gold jewellery. However, the Kerala High Court later partially set aside this ruling, claiming that the woman had failed to establish the misappropriation.
Displeased with the high court’s decision, the woman approached the Supreme Court for justice. A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta clarified that stridhan property remains the exclusive possession of the wife and does not become joint property with the husband. The court emphasized that the husband has no title or independent dominion over the property.
ALSO READ: Chhattisgarh High Court Affirms: “A Wife is Neither a Chattel Nor a Bonded Labourer”
According to the bench-
“Gifts given to a woman before, during, or after marriage, including during farewell ceremonies, are considered her stridhan properties. These belong solely to her, allowing her full rights to manage them as she wishes.”
The court further stated-
“The husband lacks authority over his wife’s stridhan assets. Although he can access them in times of hardship, he is morally bound to reimburse her with either the property itself or its value.”
referring to a previous judgment on the matter.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that matters of matrimony are rarely simple or straightforward. It recognized that divorce, in particular, is still considered a stigma in Indian society. Therefore, delays in commencing legal proceedings are understandable as parties often attempt to resolve disputes and differences. The court empathized with the appellant, who faced the imminent prospect of the termination of her second marriage.
The bench stated-
“Furthermore, the appellant did not bring forth a claim to the Family Court that was beyond the statute of limitations. Therefore, questioning the appellant’s sincerity in light of the facts and circumstances was unwarranted.”
The Supreme Court criticized the Kerala High Court for failing to draw the correct inferences from the established facts. It clarified that the wife did not need to prove the mode and manner of acquiring her stridhan for a claim of return of articles or their monetary equivalent to succeed. The court emphasized that this was not a criminal trial requiring a complete and conclusive chain of circumstances. The appellant had brought a sufficient quantity of jewellery to her matrimonial home, as evidenced by photographs.
The court acknowledged the woman’s efforts to initiate action towards recovering the value of her 89 sovereigns of gold, which were valued at Rs 8.90 lakh in 2009.
ALSO READ: Wife Holds Lifetime Rights to Property, Including Income of Husband: Delhi HC
However, it recognized that merely upholding the decree of the family court at this point would result in injustice. Considering the passage of time, the increase in the cost of living, and the principles of equity and justice, the bench invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to award the appellant a sum of Rs 25,00,000.