The Supreme Court has reiterated while directing a man to pay Rs. 25 Lakhs to the woman in return for her lost gold, stating that a husband has no control over his wife's 'stridhan' (woman's property).

In this instance, the woman said that her family had given her 89 sovereigns worth of gold when they were married. Her father also gave her husband a check for Rs 2 lakh after the wedding.

The woman claims that on their first night of marriage, her husband stole all of her jewels and gave them to his mother, claiming to be the guardian. She said that the husband and his mother had stolen all of the jewels in order to pay off their previous debts.

In 2011, the family court determined that the husband and his mother had stolen the appellant's gold jewellery and that she was entitled to compensation for the harm that had been done to her.

The Kerala High Court ruled that the lady had not been able to prove that her husband and his mother had stolen gold jewels, even though it partially set aside the relief awarded by the family court. The lady then appealed the high court ruling to the Supreme Court.

A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta said '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 its owner.

SC
Image from : X.com

"Properties gifted to a woman before marriage, at the time of marriage or at the time of bidding farewell or thereafter are her stridhan properties. It is her absolute property with all rights to dispose at her own pleasure. The husband has no control over her stridhan property. 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," the bench said while referring to an earlier judgment on the issue.

According to the Supreme Court, matrimonial cases are rarely easy or clear-cut. Therefore, it is unexpected that human behavior would follow a mechanical schedule prior to the holy connection of marriage being broken.

"Divorce, majorly, in Indian society is still considered a stigma, and any delay in commencement of legal proceedings is quite understandable because of the attempts made to have the disputes and differences resolved; more so, in a case of the present nature, when the appellant was faced with the imminent prospect of termination of her second marriage," the bench said.

According to the Supreme Court, it is highly unlikely that a woman did not trust her husband from the start because marriage is based on the unavoidable mutual trust that couples must have.

"The High Court, thus, failed to draw the right inference from facts which appear to have been fairly established. That apart, we have neither been shown nor do we know of any binding precedent that for a claim of return of stridhan articles or money equivalent thereof to succeed, the wife has to prove the mode and manner of such acquisition," the court said.

"It was not a criminal trial where the chain of circumstances had to be complete and conclusively proved, without any missing link. Undisputedly, the appellant had brought to the matrimonial home sufficient quantum of jewellery, which she wore during the marriage and as is evidenced from photographs," the bench said.

The woman had successfully started legal proceedings to reclaim money in lieu of 89 sovereigns of gold, which had a 2009 valuation of Rs 8.90 lakh, according to the top court.

"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 bench said.

You might also be interested in: 400-year-old ancient metal idols discovered during house construction in Haryana village