Supreme Court’s Decision On Women’s Sole Ownership Of ‘Stridhan’: Legal Precedents And Practical Implications

Posted On - 19 October, 2024 • By - Anju Nair

Introduction

In the evolving landscape of gender rights in India, the Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in safeguarding women’s rights, especially concerning property and financial independence. One of the landmark rulings reinforcing a woman’s ownership rights revolves around the concept of ‘Stridhan.’ The Court has consistently held that ‘Stridhan,’ which encompasses gifts and wealth given to a woman at various stages of her life, remains her sole and unequivocal property.

Understanding the Concept of ‘Stridhan’

Derived from the Sanskrit words ‘stri’ (woman) and ‘dhan’ (property), ‘Stridhan’ refers to the property and wealth that a woman receives from her family, relatives, or husband, typically during marriage ceremonies, childbirth, or other significant life events. This wealth includes gifts of jewelry, money, real estate, and movable property, and it can also include earnings from her own work. Legally, ‘Stridhan’ is defined as property that a woman has absolute rights over, and this right continues even after marriage. The concept is centuries old, rooted in the Dharmashastra and other ancient Hindu texts, but its legal implications are as relevant today as ever.

Indian courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have time and again reiterated the sanctity of Stridhan and underscored that it is not a shared property but belongs solely to the woman. Even her husband or in-laws do not have any legal claim over it. This is true irrespective of the duration of the marriage or the nature of the relationship between the woman and her family members.

  • Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956  states “Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property. Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner”.
  • Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – this provision read with Section 14 of HAS States that “ even if Stridhan is placed in the custody of her husband or her in-laws, they would be deemed to be trustees and bound to return the same if and when demanded by her”.
  • Section 316 (1) & (2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita- A case may also be filed for criminal breach of trust if a woman is deprived of her Stridhan.
  • Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Although dowry is illegal, there is a clear distinction between dowry and Stridhan.

Supreme Court’s Landmark Rulings on Stridhan

The judiciary has played an instrumental role in distinguishing Stridhan from dowry and reinforcing women’s ownership rights over it. Some significant rulings of the Supreme Court on this subject include:

  • Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar (1985 AIR 628, 1985 SCR (3) 191)

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that a woman is the absolute owner of her Stridhan, and she can deal with it in any manner she likes. If her husband or in-laws retain control of her Stridhan, they can be held liable for criminal breach of trust under Section 405 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In the Pratibha Rani case, the Court dealt with a scenario where the woman was deprived of her jewelry and other valuables after marriage. The Court ruled that the husband and his family members could not claim any right over her Stridhan and reiterated that refusal to return Stridhan amounts to criminal breach of trust.

  • Vinod Kumar Sethi v. State of Punjab (1982)

In this case, the Court held that a woman has full autonomy over her Stridhan, including gifts received at the time of marriage or from her relatives, and no one else can assert rights over it. The ruling reinforced the autonomy and control of women over their property.

  • Supreme Court’s Ruling in Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997 AIR 113, 1996 SCR (7) 970)

The court has paved a way for the judicial recognition of the principle of ‘locus standi’ towards the actions for Stridhan along with the action for recovering the same in absentia of the wife and provided for the singular ownership of the Stridhan property by the wife. Additionally, the jurisprudence pertaining to singular right of the female i.e., wife or former wife in the present case has also been developed for being the sole and unequivocal owner of the property that may be gifted or bestowed upon her before, during or after marriage and related rituals and laid down the exclusion of the husband’s right along with the right of her father too when the daughter is alive and capable of making decisions pertaining to the recovery of her own Stridhan. The assumption that the bride’s father can claim the Stridhan of his daughter from her in – laws is also not valid in the eyes of law since it dilutes the right of the daughter and makes the father an equally rightful claimant which would amount to miscarriage of justice and lead to questions of ownership of the stridhan being raised in such cases.

The term ‘exclusive property of the wife’ which has been in question by the Indian courts and various courts across jurisdictions have interpreted it differently has also been interpreted literally by the present judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court paving a clear way for an unambiguous interpretation of such cases and acting as a guiding light for the upcoming cases. 

Practical Implications of the Supreme Court’s Rulings

The judgments of the Supreme Court have practical significance for women seeking to reclaim or protect their Stridhan, especially in divorce or separation proceedings. The legal position is unequivocal: a woman is the sole and absolute owner of her Stridhan. The following points highlight the implications:

  • Enforcing Property Rights

Women can assert their rights over their Stridhan even after divorce or separation. The husband or his family has no legal authority to withhold or claim any portion of Stridhan. If a woman’s Stridhan is not returned, she can initiate legal proceedings for its recovery under criminal breach of trust.

  • Criminal Liability for Non-Return of Stridhan

The non-return of Stridhan is now treated as a serious offense under the IPC now BNS, and women can file criminal cases against their husbands and in-laws under Section 316 (1) & (2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Sections 405 and 406 for criminal breach of trust). This legal safeguard is particularly beneficial in cases of marital discord, as it deters husbands and in-laws from unlawfully holding onto a woman’s property.

  • Protecting Financial Independence

By protecting a woman’s rights over her Stridhan, the Supreme Court’s rulings have gone a long way in ensuring that women retain financial independence. Women can now legally claim their assets even in situations of domestic violence, abandonment, or divorce. The legal protection ensures that women are not financially exploited or deprived of their rightful property.

  • Distinguishing Dowry from Stridhan

The judicial clarification distinguishing Stridhan from dowry is another critical aspect of the legal framework. While dowry is illegal under the Dowry Prohibition Act, Stridhan is entirely legal and enjoys full protection under the law. This distinction has helped women assert their property rights without the fear of legal complications related to dowry.

  • Practical Difficulties in Enforcement

Despite the clarity of legal precedents, practical challenges remain. Often, women face difficulties in reclaiming their Stridhan due to societal pressures, family dynamics, or a lack of awareness about their rights. In rural areas especially, the enforcement of these rights can be an uphill task due to deep-rooted patriarchal attitudes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decisions on the ownership of Stridhan have been a monumental step in securing women’s financial rights in India. The reaffirmation of a woman’s sole and unequivocal ownership of her Stridhan is a progressive legal step towards achieving gender equality. The key legal precedents highlight the importance of protecting a woman’s financial autonomy, especially in marital relationships. While challenges in enforcing these rights persist, the judiciary has laid a strong foundation for women to assert and reclaim their rightful property.

However, it is crucial to highlight that despite the unequivocal legal recognition of a woman’s exclusive right over her stridhan under Indian law, many women continue to face obstacles in asserting these rights. A significant number of cases are brought before the courts each year, where women are forced to initiate legal proceedings to reclaim their stridhanfrom their husbands and in-laws. These family members often unlawfully retain possession, treating it as joint property or, in some instances, their own personal assets, in blatant violation of the legal principles enshrined in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the precedents established by the judiciary. The continued misappropriation of stridhan not only undermines the legal safeguards intended to protect a woman’s financial independence but also constitutes a violation of her constitutional rights to equality, dignity, and property under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

As we look towards a future where women’s rights continue to evolve, it is essential for legal practitioners, policymakers, and society at large to remain committed to ensuring that women are aware of and able to enforce their rights to Stridhan. The law offers significant protection, and it is up to us to ensure its practical application to empower women financially and legally.

King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys

Click Here to Get in Touch

New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com