“Stridhan Gifted to Woman Is Her Absolute Property; Husband Has No Control Over It: Supreme Court”
Case title: Maya Gopinathan v. Anoop S.B. & Anr.
Case no.: Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No.13398/2022
Dated on: 24th April 2024
Quorum: Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta
FACTS OF THE CASE
In a recent appeal before the High Court of Kerala, the matter at hand delved into the intricate issues surrounding matrimonial disputes, specifically focusing on allegations of misappropriation of jewellery. The case, arising from the dissolution of a marriage between the appellant and the first respondent, unfolded a series of events that led to legal proceedings and subsequent appeals. The final judgment, however, left much to be debated.
The marriage between the appellant and the first respondent, both previously married individuals, took place in 2003. Allegations arose concerning the misappropriation of the appellant’s gold jewellery by the respondents, which she claimed were entrusted to them for safekeeping. The appellant filed a petition before the Family Court, seeking the recovery of the value of her jewellery and a sum of money paid by her father to the first respondent. The Family Court ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the respondents to compensate her for the jewellery and the sum of money. Dissatisfied with this decision, the respondents appealed to the High Court.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The appellant contended that the jewellery entrusted to the respondents was misappropriated to discharge their financial liabilities, supported by the testimony of witnesses and circumstantial evidence.
- Misappropriation of Gold Jewellery: The appellant claims that on the first night of marriage, the first respondent took custody of all her jewellery and entrusted it to the second respondent under the guise of safekeeping. She alleges that the jewellery was misappropriated by the respondents to discharge their pre-existing financial liabilities.
- Payment of Rs. 2,00,000/-: The appellant contends that during pre-marriage negotiations, it was agreed that Rs. 2,00,000/- would be paid to the first respondent by P.W.2. She asserts that this payment was made after marriage.
- Possession of Jewellery: The appellant argues that she did not retain possession of her jewellery throughout the marriage and presents her narrative of events, corroborated by P.W.2, to support her claim.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The respondents denied the allegations, claiming that the jewellery was in the appellant’s possession throughout, and they had no knowledge of any misappropriation. They argued that the appellant failed to provide concrete evidence of the acquisition of the jewellery or the existence of financial liabilities.
- Denial of Dowry Demand: The respondents deny any demand for dowry, stating that it was a second marriage for both parties. They admit to being informed about the pre-existing 50 sovereigns of gold that the appellant had and the promise of supplementation by P.W.2.
- Custody of Jewellery: The respondents counter the appellant’s claim regarding the custody of jewellery, stating that the appellant kept the jewellery locked in an almirah on the first night of marriage and later took it to her paternal home.
- Utilization of Jewellery: The respondents deny misappropriating the jewellery, asserting that the appellant wore her jewellery at subsequent events, indicating her continued possession.
Both parties present their versions of events, supported by testimonies and evidence, to establish their claims and refute those of the opposing party. The appellant seeks to establish misappropriation of jewellery and the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/-, while the respondents aim to rebut these claims and assert the appellant’s continued possession of her jewellery.
REFERENCE BY COURT –
Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada [a decision by a bench of three Hon’ble Judges on a reference made by a bench of two Hon’ble Judges, who considered it necessary that a fresh look at the view expressed in a previous decision of three Hon’ble Judges in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar be had], after scrutiny of several treatises and precedents had that the properties gifted to a woman before marriage, at the time of marriage or at the time of bidding of 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. Therefore, 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 owner thereof. It was also observed that to make out an offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, what was required to be proved was entrustment of stridhan property with dominion over such property to the husband or to any member of his family as well as dishonest misappropriation of or conversion to his own use the said property by the husband or such other member of his family. Admittedly, we are not concerned with any criminal offence and, therefore, proof on balance of probabilities would be sufficient.
ISSUE –
The central issues revolved around whether the appellant could establish the misappropriation of her jewellery and whether the High Court erred in setting aside the relief granted by the Family Court.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Family Court, after an exhaustive examination of evidence, concluded in favor of the appellant, citing discrepancies in the respondents’ testimony and supporting the appellant’s version of events. However, the High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, arrived at a contradictory conclusion, questioning the credibility of the appellant’s claims and disregarding significant evidence.
The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the High Court’s judgment highlighted several flaws, including the imposition of an undue burden of proof on the appellant and the misinterpretation of photographic evidence. The Court emphasized that in civil cases, the standard of proof is based on a preponderance of probabilities and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt. It criticized the High Court for its failure to draw the right inferences from established facts and for its contradictory findings.
The court acknowledges that such a significant amount of jewellery would naturally be entrusted to a newly-wed husband, especially by a bride entering a new home. The Family Court found that the jewelry was indeed entrusted to the husband, and any disposal or non-return of it would constitute misappropriation.
Witness testimonies support the appellant’s claim that the jewellery was not permanently gifted or transferred to the husband but was only handed over for safekeeping. Despite doubts raised about the weight of the jewellery and its accurate measurement, the court finds evidence supporting the appellant’s claim, including testimony regarding her ownership of 50 sovereigns of gold from her previous marriage.
The court rejects the High Court’s reasoning that possession of a bank locker before marriage implies ownership of jewelry. It finds the assumption conjectural and notes that the appellant’s possession of gold jewelry, as evidenced by photographs, is consistent with her claim. The court also criticizes the High Court for not appreciating the counterclaim filed by the husband, which sought the return of gifts given to the wife at the time of marriage, further supporting her ownership claim.
While acknowledging that the case could be remanded for further proceedings, the court considers the prolonged duration of the legal process and decides to provide relief to the appellant without further delay. Considering the passage of time, inflation, and the appellant’s age, the court exercises its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to award financial compensation of Rs 25,00,000 to the appellant. This compensation is intended to provide comfort and security for her future life.
The court orders the respondent to pay the compensation within six months, failing which he will be liable to pay interest. The appellant is granted the liberty to initiate proceedings for the realization of the awarded amount in accordance with the law.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A