NEW DELHI: Reinforcing married girls’s proper over ‘streedhan’, Supreme Courtroom on Wednesday held that streedhan can not turn out to be joint property of a pair, and a husband has no management over his spouse’s property, which he might use throughout instances of misery however should return to her. Adjudicating a matrimonial dispute over streedhan, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta stated a girl has absolute rights over her streedhan — presents given to a girl earlier than, throughout, or after marriage, akin to cash, jewelry, land, utensils and different presents from mother and father, parents-in-law, kinfolk and mates.
“It’s her absolute property with all rights to get rid of at her personal pleasure. The husband has no management over her streedhan. He might use it throughout instances of his misery, however nonetheless, he has an ethical obligation to revive the identical or its worth to his spouse. Due to this fact, streedhan property doesn’t turn out to be joint property of the spouse and the husband, and the husband has no title or unbiased dominion over the property as its proprietor,” the bench said.
The court docket famous {that a} man or his relations may very well be prosecuted underneath Part 406 of IPC for prison breach of belief if streedhan is dishonestly misappropriated.
It additionally held that in such instances, the dispute shouldn’t be determined primarily based on proof past cheap doubt as in prison instances, however on the preponderance of chances tending to attract an inference that the actual fact should be extra possible.
On this case, a girl alleged that her jewelry was taken away by her husband on the very first day of marriage, and she or he approached the household court docket to retrieve her property after the connection turned bitter they usually determined to separate. A household court docket in 2009 handed a verdict in her favour and ordered her husband to pay her Rs 8.9 lakh, however the Kerala Excessive Courtroom quashed the order and held that the spouse did not show that her stridhan was taken away by him.
The court docket, after inspecting the proof, concluded that the household court docket’s verdict was appropriate and directed that she be paid Rs 25 lakh, contemplating the passage of 15 years for the reason that household court docket’s verdict. It stated that the excessive court docket erred in doubting her bona fide for approaching the court docket late.
“It’s her absolute property with all rights to get rid of at her personal pleasure. The husband has no management over her streedhan. He might use it throughout instances of his misery, however nonetheless, he has an ethical obligation to revive the identical or its worth to his spouse. Due to this fact, streedhan property doesn’t turn out to be joint property of the spouse and the husband, and the husband has no title or unbiased dominion over the property as its proprietor,” the bench said.
The court docket famous {that a} man or his relations may very well be prosecuted underneath Part 406 of IPC for prison breach of belief if streedhan is dishonestly misappropriated.
It additionally held that in such instances, the dispute shouldn’t be determined primarily based on proof past cheap doubt as in prison instances, however on the preponderance of chances tending to attract an inference that the actual fact should be extra possible.
On this case, a girl alleged that her jewelry was taken away by her husband on the very first day of marriage, and she or he approached the household court docket to retrieve her property after the connection turned bitter they usually determined to separate. A household court docket in 2009 handed a verdict in her favour and ordered her husband to pay her Rs 8.9 lakh, however the Kerala Excessive Courtroom quashed the order and held that the spouse did not show that her stridhan was taken away by him.
The court docket, after inspecting the proof, concluded that the household court docket’s verdict was appropriate and directed that she be paid Rs 25 lakh, contemplating the passage of 15 years for the reason that household court docket’s verdict. It stated that the excessive court docket erred in doubting her bona fide for approaching the court docket late.
