The Supreme Court has restated that husband has no control over his wife's 'streedhan' (woman's property), stating that although a husband may utilize it in times of need, he has a moral obligation to return it to his wife. This directive came as the Court instructed a man to compensate a woman with Rs 25 lakh for the gold she had lost.
In this particular case, the woman asserted that her family had bestowed upon her 89 sovereigns of gold as 'streedhan' during her marriage. Furthermore, following the wedding ceremony, her father presented a cheque worth 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.
In 2011, the Family Court determined that the husband and his mother had unlawfully appropriated the appellant's gold jewelry, affirming her right to recover the losses incurred due to this misappropriation. However, the Kerala High Court, while partially overturning the relief provided by the family court, ruled that the woman had failed to substantiate the misappropriation of gold jewelry by her husband and his mother.
Challenging the decision of the high court, the woman took her case to the Supreme Court. A bench comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta said that 'streedhan' property remains the exclusive possession of the wife and does not transform into joint property with the husband. They reiterated that the husband holds no title or separate control over such property as its proprietor.
Properties gifted to a woman before marriage, at the time of marriage or at the time of bidding farewell or thereafter are her streedhan properties. It is her absolute property with all rights to dispose at her own pleasure.
The husband has no control over her streedhan 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 noted that issues within the realm of marriage are seldom uncomplicated or clear-cut. Consequently, expecting human responses to adhere strictly to a mechanical timeline before the dissolution of the sacred bond of marriage is unrealistic.