It is very well known that gifts given to the bride at the time of her marriage by her parents, husband, in-laws, or relatives are her “stridhan”. Stridhan is a pious concept that has been followed from old times. It is movable or immovable property given to her before, after, or at the time of her marriage, even during childbirth. This practice can be traced back to Vedas, old smritis as well. It is given as a gift, a token of love. It is only possessed by the woman and nobody else. However, over the years, the same concept has been equated with dowry. Legally speaking, the concept of stridhan as women’s sole absolute property is very well protected in the eyes of the law, so that it cannot be confiscated by the husband or the in-laws. Nobody can take away this property from the woman. Even if she gives it to her husband or any of the in-laws for safekeeping, they have to return it accordingly, but if the contrary is done it will amount to a criminal breach of trust and penalizing the same.
FACTS
The case at hand revolves around the marriage of Maya Gopinath and Anoop SB which was solemnized on 4th May 2003 as per Hindu rituals. According to the appellant, she was gifted 89 sovereign gold by her family at the time of the marriage, and after her marriage, her father gave a sum of rupees 2 lakh to the first respondent. The appellant claimed that the first respondent took trusteeship of all her jewellery on the first night of their marriage and gave it to the second respondent for safekeeping. She also claimed that her jewellery was miss appropriated for discharging their current financial liabilities. However, over the period their marriage deteriorated, they both drifted apart and the appellant filed a petition for recovery of the 2 lakh rupees which was given by her father to the first respondent, she also filed for divorce. The respondents filed a counterclaim of rupees 70000 as the value of some jewellery that was gifted to the appellant during their wedding ceremony. The family court in its judgment allowed the appellant to recover Rs. 890000 and directed the first respondent to give 2 lakh rupees with 6% interest per annum additionally the family court also gave a decree of divorce to dissolve the marriage between the parties and dismissed the counterclaim of the respondents. Furthermore, the respondents moved the High Court against the relief granted to the appellant. The High Court in its judgment partially allowed the respondents to appeal and overturned the relief granted to Maya by the family court. Dissatisfied with this verdict, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE RAISED
- Whether Stridhan constitutes the absolute property of a woman under Indian law.
- Whether a husband can claim a share in Stridhan during the dissolution of marriage.
CONTENTION
Appellant (Maya Gopinathan)
Maya contented that stridhan is her absolute property. It includes all her movable and immovable property which was given to her by her parents, relatives, and in-laws. She highlighted the importance of stridhan during the financial crisis and also gave references to various supreme court judgments, one of them was Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar (1985), where the Supreme Court itself held stridhan as pious and ruled in favor of absolute ownership of the women. She gave all the required documentation and witnesses for her property in question. She argued that her right to stridhan is very well protected under section 14 Hindu Succession Act, 1956 read with section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Invoking section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, she claimed any attempt by her husband or in-laws in the dispossession of her stridhan would amount to an offense as well as abuse.
Respondent (Anoop S.B.)
Anoop contented that the property in question is not stridhan as it was jointly owned and managed by both. Hence, he claimed, it is not exclusively stridhan. He also contested the documentation proved by Maya as it doesn’t prove the property to be the claimed stridhan. Further, he argued, since the shreds of evidence provided by Maya, don’t give a clear title to the property in question, it would be unfair to him. Lastly, he urged the court to look at the contemporary settings, where both the spouses provide to the household and hold assets jointly.
RATIONALE
The Supreme Court, comprising the bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta gave a landmark ruling on the principle of stridhan as the “absolute” property of the woman. The Hon’ble court observed that the gifts which are made to a woman by her parents, husband, relatives, or in-laws, at the time of her marriage comprise her stridhan. It was emphasized that it is a deeply rooted ancient tradition that acts as a financial security for the woman. The husband has no claim on stridhan. It cannot be owned by anyone else. The court emphasized that the husband can use the stridhan at times of distress or financial crisis only but he has a duty towards his wife to restore the same. Citing the principle laid down in Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada the court held that the properties gifted to a woman before marriage, at the time of marriage, at the time of bidding of farewell, or thereafter were considered as stridhan properties. Also emphasizes that the husband has no control whatsoever over stridhan. For that reason, the court called the high court’s decision “legally unsustainable” for using an incorrect approach and noted that the decision was arrived at based on “assumptions and suppositions”. Lastly, the supreme court upheld the decision given by the family court and also directed the husband to pay compensation of Rupees 25 lakhs to the appellant towards the repossession of her property in question, i.e, ‘Stridhan’, which was misappropriated by the husband, allegedly.
DEFECTS OF LAW
In my opinion, while this judgment reaffirmed the legal status of stridhan as an absolute property of women, it certainly had some deficiencies as well. Firstly, there is no clear distinction between stridhan and joint marital property, which proves to be tangled. The law clearly lacks a division between the two. Secondly, it can be burdensome for women to prove the claim on the stridhan as it is a traditional practice and it is very challenging to provide the documentation or formal records for the same. Thirdly, there is no uniform concept of stridhan in personal laws, which is deteriorating the woman’s right over her property. Lastly, with the evolving society, where the couples own the marriage assets jointly, there is a need to revise the concept of stridhan accordingly and protect women’s rights at the same time
INFERENCE
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Maya Gopinathan vs. Anoop S.B. (2024) gave a notable reaffirmation of the legality as well as the customary importance of stridhan as the absolute property of a woman. In contemporary settings, this case gave a clear picture of the assets and distinguishing between the assets owned after marriage, particularly by the woman. It is stressed that stridhan is the exclusive property of the woman which is gifted to her as a token of love by her parents, relatives, or any in-laws. The husband has next to nil claim over the same. The judgment as mentioned, that stridhan acts as an economic security for the woman, referring to legal statutes like the Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Marriage Act, and Protection of Women from Domestic Violence.
The case at hand also highlighted the complexities around the clear distinction between the stridhan and other joint assets owned by the couple after marriage. There should be clear and strict differences between both, making stridhan a separate property. The ruling also emphasized having clear documentation and formal records regarding the same to ascertain the claims to these gifted assets which constitute the stridhan.
In modern society, where both the couple take charge of the household and financial responsibilities, there should be a balanced approach. Where assets are maintained and jointly owned by the couple, to make it fair there should be legal reforms in the concept of stridhan. Making it a separate property, in which there is no interference or assets of others are not mixed, where no legal dispute will arise. This should be done by looking at the evolving society and protecting a woman’s right to her property, which is already in dispute.
This decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has proved to be a landmark precedent for the upcoming legal disputes on stridhan. It will act as a guiding principle for upcoming disputes to all legal practitioners. It is a robust legal mechanism for a woman so that they can protect their stridhan. Furthermore, this ruling will act as the formation of various legal reforms for this evolving concept of stridhan and its challenges regarding the documentation and interpretations in other personal laws as well.