What Is Streedhan? Husband Has No Control Over His Wife's "Streedhan', Says SC

The recent verdict by the Supreme Court reinforces a fundamental principle of matrimonial law: a husband has no control over his wife's assets called 'streedhan'. The top court said husbands must give it back to their wives, no matter what. Let's look at what happened in the case and what it means for married couples. This landmark decision underscores the importance of recognising and respecting a woman's property rights within the institution of marriage. The case in question exemplifies the court's commitment to upholding the integrity of 'streedhan'¡ªthe property owned by a woman¡ªand ensuring that husbands do not wield undue control over it. Let's look at what happened in the case and what it means for married couples.

What is Streedhan?

'Streedhan' encompasses various gifts, jewelry, cash, and properties that a woman receives from friends or family before, during, and after marriage, including during childbirth and widowhood. These gifts can originate from both her own family and her in-laws' family. The woman holds exclusive rights to these assets, and her husband cannot make a claim to them. It is essential to maintain a detailed list of such items and store them securely. This ensures that in the event of a marital breakdown, the woman is aware of the assets she can rightfully claim as her 'streendhan.'

What Happened?

Bride | Photo: Unsplash

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a husband has no control over his wife's 'stridhan' (woman's property) and, although he may utilize it in times of distress, he is morally obligated to return it to his wife. In a recent case, the court directed a man to pay Rs 25 lakh to a woman for her lost gold. The woman claimed that 89 sovereigns of gold were gifted to her by her family at the time of marriage, and her father also gave a cheque for Rs 2 lakh to her husband after the wedding, reported ET.

However, on the first night of their marriage, the husband took custody of all her jewelry and entrusted it to his mother for safekeeping. The woman alleged that the husband and his mother misappropriated all the jewelry to settle their pre-existing financial obligations. The Family Court ruled in favor of the woman in 2011, holding that the husband and his mother had indeed misappropriated her gold jewelry, entitling her to recover the loss.

However, the Kerala High Court partially overturned this decision, stating that the woman had failed to prove the misappropriation. Dissatisfied with the high court's ruling, the woman appealed to the Supreme Court. A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta reaffirmed that 'stridhan' property remains the sole property of the wife, and the husband has no legal right or control over it.

What the Supreme Court Said: Protecting Women's Rights

BCCL

"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.

The Supreme Court stated that issues concerning marriage are rarely simple or straightforward. Therefore, expecting human reactions to adhere to a mechanical timeline before the sacred bond of marriage is dissolved is unrealistic.

Also Read: Anant Ambani Spotted At Dubai Mall In Rolls Royce Cullinan & 20 Security Cars

"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.

" Even otherwise, the appellant did not present before the Family Court a time barred claim. Doubting the bona fide of the appellant, on facts and in the circumstances, was thus not called for," the bench said.

The Supreme Court said that the foundation of marriage is built upon the essential mutual trust between spouses, which is inherent in conjugal relationships. Therefore, it is unlikely to assume that the woman did not trust her husband from the very beginning.

"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.

"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 Supreme Court noted that the woman had effectively taken steps to recover the value of 89 sovereigns of gold, which was estimated to be Rs 8.90 lakh in the year 2009.

"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.

Also Read: Here How Much Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah Cast Ea

Note: Details mentioned here are as per the information available.

For the latest and more interesting financial news, keep reading Indiatimes Worth. Click here