New Delhi: In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a fundamental principle: a husband holds no dominion over his wife’s ‘stridhan’—her property—emphasizing that while he may utilize it in times of distress, he bears a moral obligation to restore it to her. This directive came as the apex court ordered a man to compensate his wife with Rs 25 lakh for the loss of her gold.
The crux of the case revolved around a woman’s claim that 89 sovereigns of gold were bestowed upon her by her family during marriage. Additionally, her father presented a cheque of Rs 2 lakh to her husband post-wedding.
Allegations surfaced that on their wedding night, the husband assumed possession of all her jewelry, entrusting it to his mother for safekeeping. Subsequently, the woman asserted that the entire collection was misappropriated by her husband and mother-in-law to settle prior financial obligations.
Also Read | India’s Supreme Court Upholds Status Quo in Vote-Counting Process Amid Election Season
In 2011, the family court ruled in favor of the woman, affirming the misappropriation of her gold jewelry and granting her compensation. However, the Kerala High Court partially overturned this decision, citing insufficient evidence to establish the misappropriation.
Discontented with the high court’s verdict, the woman approached the Supreme Court.
A bench comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta underscored the sanctity of ‘stridhan’, elucidating that properties gifted to a woman before, during, or after marriage remain her exclusive assets, beyond the control of her husband.
“The husband has no control over her stridhan property,” the bench emphasized, reiterating a prior judgment on the matter. “He may utilize it during times of distress, but he bears the moral duty to return it to his wife.”
Recognizing the complexity of matrimonial matters, the court remarked on the societal stigma surrounding divorce, acknowledging the efforts made to resolve disputes before legal recourse.
Also Read | WhatsApp Issues Stark Warning to Indian Authorities Amid Encryption Dispute in Delhi High Court
Moreover, the court admonished the high court for doubting the woman’s bona fides, stressing that the burden of proving the acquisition of ‘stridhan’ does not rest solely on the wife.
“It was not a criminal trial,” the court clarified, emphasizing that the wife’s substantial jewelry holdings, as evidenced by photographs, sufficed as proof.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India, awarded the woman Rs 25,00,000 in restitution, considering the passage of time, rising living costs, and the imperative of equity and justice.
