SC: Man can be prosecuted for misappropriating streedhan – Times of India

NEW DELHI: Reinforcing married women’s right over ‘streedhan’, Supreme Court on Wednesday held that streedhan cannot become joint property of a couple, and a husband has no control over his wife’s assets, which he may use during times of distress but must return to her. Adjudicating a matrimonial dispute over streedhan, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta said a woman has absolute rights over her streedhan — gifts given to a woman before, during, or after marriage, such as money, jewellery, land, utensils and other gifts from parents, parents-in-law, relatives and friends.
“It is her absolute property with all rights to dispose of at her own pleasure. The husband has no control over her streedhan. He may use it during times of his distress, but nonetheless, he has a moral obligation to restore the same or its value to his wife. Therefore, streedhan property does not become joint property of the wife and the husband, and the husband has no title or independent dominion over the property as its owner,” the bench stated.
The court noted that a man or his family members could be prosecuted under Section 406 of IPC for criminal breach of trust if streedhan is dishonestly misappropriated.
It also held that in such cases, the dispute should not be decided based on proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases, but on the preponderance of probabilities tending to draw an inference that the fact must be more probable.
In this case, a woman alleged that her jewellery was taken away by her husband on the very first day of marriage, and she approached the family court to retrieve her property after the relationship turned sour and they decided to separate. A family court in 2009 passed a verdict in her favour and ordered her husband to pay her Rs 8.9 lakh, but the Kerala High Court quashed the order and held that the wife failed to prove that her stridhan was taken away by him.
The court, after examining the evidence, concluded that the family court’s verdict was correct and directed that she be paid Rs 25 lakh, considering the passage of 15 years since the family court’s verdict. It said that the high court erred in doubting her bona fide for approaching the court late.

!(function(f, b, e, v, n, t, s) {
function loadFBEvents(isFBCampaignActive) {
if (!isFBCampaignActive) {
return;
}
(function(f, b, e, v, n, t, s) {
if (f.fbq) return;
n = f.fbq = function() {
n.callMethod ? n.callMethod(…arguments) : n.queue.push(arguments);
};
if (!f._fbq) f._fbq = n;
n.push = n;
n.loaded = !0;
n.version = ‘2.0’;
n.queue = [];
t = b.createElement(e);
t.async = !0;
t.defer = !0;
t.src = v;
s = b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t, s);
})(f, b, e, ‘https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’, n, t, s);
fbq(‘init’, ‘593671331875494’);
fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);
};

function loadSurvicateJs(allowedSurvicateSections = []){
const section = window.location.pathname.split(‘/’)[1]
const isHomePageAllowed = window.location.pathname === ‘/’ && allowedSurvicateSections.includes(‘homepage’)

if(allowedSurvicateSections.includes(section) || isHomePageAllowed){
(function(w) {
var s = document.createElement(‘script’);
s.src=”https://survey.survicate.com/workspaces/0be6ae9845d14a7c8ff08a7a00bd9b21/web_surveys.js”;
s.async = true;
var e = document.getElementsByTagName(‘script’)[0];
e.parentNode.insertBefore(s, e);
})(window);
}

}