Husband has no control over wife's 'stridhan': Supreme Court
New Delhi, Apr 25: A husband has no control over his wife's 'stridhan' (woman's property) and while he may use it during the time of his distress, he has a moral obligation to return it to his wife, the Supreme Court has reiterated while directing a man to pay Rs 25 lakh to a woman in return for her lost gold.
The woman in this case claimed that 89 sovereigns of gold were gifted to her by her family at the time of marriage. Additionally, after the wedding, her father gave a cheque for Rs 2 lakh to her husband.
According to the woman, on the first night of their marriage, the husband took custody of all her jewellery and entrusted the same to his mother under the garb of safekeeping. She alleged that all the jewellery was misappropriated by the husband and his mother to discharge their pre-existing financial liabilities.
The Family Court, in 2011, held that the husband and his mother had indeed misappropriated the appellant's gold jewellery and that she was entitled to recoup the loss caused to her by the said misappropriation.
The Kerala High Court, while partly setting aside the relief granted by the family court, held that the woman had not been able to establish misappropriation of gold jewellery by the husband and his mother.
The woman then moved the Supreme Court against the high court order.
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.
"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 apex court said matters of matrimony can rarely be said to be simple or straightforward hence, human reaction according to a mechanical timeline before the sacred bond of marriage is severed is not what one would expect.
"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 top court said the very concept of marriage rests on the inevitable mutual trust of the spouses, which conjugality necessarily involves and to assume that the woman from day one did not trust the husband is rather improbable.
"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 apex court said the woman had successfully initiated action towards recovery of money in lieu of 89 sovereigns of gold, which in the year 2009 was valued at Rs 8.90 lakh.
"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.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Civil society organisations jointly file complaint to election commission against BJP in Karnataka
On 06.05.2024, a delegation of concerned citizens and members of various civil society organisations met the Chief Election Officer, Karnataka to file a complaint against Bharatiya Janata Party, Karnataka. The complaint demanded action against BJP Karnataka for violation of Representation of People’s Act. 1951, Model Code of Contact (MCC) and sections 153A, 505 (1) (c ) and 505 (2) by spreading fake news and hate speech through their X handle and through newspaper advertisements.
The video posted on the BJP Karnataka X handle clearly implies that the Muslim community is “eating” all the funds at the cost of other communities, and that the Muslim community is pushing out the other communities. The very manner in which the Muslim community is portrayed as being “bad” is a shocking and blatant attack against the community.Similarly the advertisement spreads fake news that Muslims are being given reservation on the basis of religion, when they are given reservations for being a member of a socially and educationally backward class as per Article 15(4) of the constitution.
It further stated that BJP Karnataka, in putting out the video and the advertisement had violated Section 123 (3A) of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 by seeking votes on the ground of religion. By attempting to promote hatred among the Muslim and SC/ST/OBC communities, their actions also attracted IPC sections 153(A)1(a), IPC 505(2).The video is in clear violation of the Model Code of Conduct for the Lok Sabha elections 2024 as contained in the Handbook for Candidates Edition 2023 issued by the Election Commission of India and the Compendium of Instructions on the Model Code of Conduct 2024.
The delegation urged the Chief Election Officer, Karnataka to exercise their authority under Article 324 of the Indian Constitution and immediately initiate the following measures:
1. Immediately file an FIR against BJP Karnataka Social Media In-charge; JP Nadda, BJP National President; Amit Malaviya, BJP National Social Media In-charge and BY Vijayendra, State President BJP Karnataka.
2. Direct that the BJP Karnataka X handle not be permitted to post for a minimum of 48 hours.
3. Direct the BJP Karnataka to immediately delete the aforementioned post on their X handle.
4. Take strict action against BJP’s star campaigner, Mr. Narendra Modi, and ban him from campaigning for 48 hours with respect to the aforementioned newspaper advertisement.
5. Direct the BJP Karnataka to issue an apology forthwith with regard to the false claims made in the newspaper advertisement on 05.05.2024. Further, direct that the apology be of the same size as the advertisement.
It is important to note that the Election Commission has promptly initiated action against the KC Rao, President of the Bharatha Rashtra Samiti (https://elections24.eci.gov.in/docs/AhtgLNsZsm.pdf ) and Congress leader Randeep Surjewala ( https://elections24.eci.gov.in/docs/U4pbNwetPL.pdf ) for similar violations. The delegation urged the Election Commission to be equally prompt and strict with the violations committed by the Karnataka Bharatiya Janata Party as well.
The CEO, Karnataka informed the delegation that an FIR has already been filed in the matter and the Commission was working with X to bring the video down.
Representatives from Bahutva Karnataka, All India Lawyers Association for Justice (AILAJ), Campaign Against Hate Speech (CAHS), All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), Naaveddu Nilladiddare, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), were part of the delegation.
