In a recent ruling, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that stridhan gifted to woman is her absolute property; husband has no control over it. The judgement comes from the appeal filed against the final judgement and order of the Kerala High Court in a matrimonial appeal. The High Court partly permitted the respondents’ appeal and reversed the relief that the appellant had received from the Family Court in Alappuzha, Kerala.
The background of the case is as follows:
The appellant and the first respondent were married on May 4, 2003, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. That was their second marriage, for them both. A divorcee was the first respondent, whereas the appellant was a widow. At the time of her marriage, the appellant claims that her family gave her 89 sovereigns of gold. A demand draft dated July 26, 2004, from the appellant’s father also stated that the appellant had given the first respondent Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh). The appellant claims that on the first night of their marriage, which was May 4, 2003, the first respondent seized possession of all of her jewellery and gave it to the second respondent, claiming to be responsible for its safety. Additionally, according to the appellant, all of this jewellery was taken advantage of by the respondents in order to pay off their previous debts.
Over time, the couple grew apart due to inter-se conflicts and disagreements. In order to recoup the value of the jewellery and the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh), which her father had given to her husband, the appellant filed an original petition with the Family Court in 2009 seeking recovery of the same. Also, a petition for dissolution of marriage was also filed by the appellant. The respondents made a counterclaim in the amount of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand) for a gold chain and ring that the appellant was given by the first respondent during the marriage ceremony.
On May 30, 2011, the Family Court ruled that the appellant was entitled to recover the loss that the respondents had caused her by misappropriating her gold jewelry. While permitting the appellant to recover from the respondents Rs. 8,90,000 (Rupees eight lakh ninety thousand) representing the value of 89 sovereigns of gold, the Family Court also ordered the first respondent to pay the appellant Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakh) plus 6% interest annually from the date the proceedings were instituted until realisation within three (3) months.
Furthermore, the respondents’ counterclaim was dismissed by the Family Court, which also terminated the parties’ marriage by a divorce decree. According to the Family Court, the appellant could not be forced to give up the ring and chain that the first respondent gave her since they were gifts in the nature. Aggrieved by this, the respondents moved to the High Court. The High Court ruled that the appellant has not been able to prove the misappropriation of the jewellery but upheld the family court’s direction of paying Rs.2,00,000 paid by the father of the wife by Demand Draft.
The current appeal was filed by the wife challenging the High Court’s judgement.
The Supreme Court referred Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997) 2 SCC 397, whereas it upheld the legal principle that properties presented to a woman prior to marriage, during marriage, at the time of parting, or later were considered as stridhan properties. It was clarified that a husband lacked authority over such stridhan property.
The Court observed that “He may use it during the time of his distress but nonetheless he has a moral obligation to restore the same or its value to his wife. Therefore, stridhan property does not become a joint property of the wife and the husband and the husband has no title or independent dominion over the property as owner thereof,”
As a result, the Court declared the High Court’s ruling to be “legally unsustainable”. The Court pointed out that the conclusions of the High Court were predicated on “assumptions and suppositions.” “Mere upholding of the decree of the Family Court at this distance of time, without anything more, would bring about injustice to her. Bearing in mind the passage of time, the escalation in cost of living, and in the interest of equity and justice, we deem it fit in exercise of power conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution of India to award to the appellant a sum of Rs 25,00,000/,” the Court ordered and allowed appeal to the extent.
CAUSE TITLE: Maya Gopinathan v. Anoop S.B. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 334)
WRITTEN BY V.ANGELIN SUBIKSHA, SECOND YEAR LLB STUDENT, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, VELLORE, AN INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA
REFERENCES:
Maya Gopinathan v. Anoop S.B. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 334)
Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997) 2 SCC 397
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
0 Comments