Recently, the Supreme Court held that property and gold given at the time of a Muslim marriage must be returned to the woman upon divorce, while examining a challenge to the Calcutta High Court’s order in a dispute over dowry, dower, and gold ornaments. In a significant observation, the Court emphasised that the interpretation of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 must advance dignity, equality and social justice for divorced Muslim women.
Brief Facts:
The appellant and respondent married in 2005. Soon after the marriage, disputes arose, leading the appellant to leave her matrimonial home. She later initiated proceedings for maintenance and cruelty. The marriage eventually ended in divorce in 2011. After the divorce, the appellant sought return of money, gold ornaments and articles allegedly given at the time of marriage. Multiple rounds of litigation followed before various courts, with conflicting findings on whether the amounts and gold were given to the bride or to the bridegroom. Ultimately, the High Court set aside the lower court orders, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Contentions:
The respondent relied on the statement of the appellant’s father recorded during earlier criminal proceedings to argue that the amounts and gold were given to him (the bridegroom), and therefore could not be claimed by the appellant under the 1986 Act.
Whereas, the appellant relied on the testimony of the marriage registrar (Kazi) and the original marriage register entry showing that the amount and 30 bhories of gold were given at the time of marriage and were her property, asserting her statutory right to recover them post-divorce.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court disagreed with the reasoning of the High Court and emphasised the correct interpretation of Section 3(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which entitles a divorced Muslim woman to, “all the properties given to her before or at the time of marriage or after her marriage by her relatives or friends or the husband or any relatives of the husband or his friends.”
The Court noted that the High Court wrongly gave precedence to the father’s earlier statement in criminal proceedings, despite the fact that the respondent had been acquitted in those proceedings. The Court held that, “It cannot be said, in our view, that the evidentiary value of that statement is either equal to or greater than the statement of the marriage registrar.” The Bench further criticised the High Court for overlooking the testimony of the Kazi, who had produced the original marriage register entries and explained the writing and overwriting. The Court held that mere suspicion about overwriting was insufficient to discard his testimony.
In a powerful passage stressing constitutional values, the Court observed, “The construction of this Act must keep at the forefront equality, dignity and autonomy and must be done in the light of lived experiences of women where particularly in smaller towns and rural areas, inherent patriarchal discrimination is still the order of the day.” The Court also reminded that the 1986 Act exists to secure the dignity and financial protection of divorced Muslim women, which aligns with Article 21 of the Constitution.
The decision of the Court:
The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, and restored the appellant’s entitlement to the amount and 30 bhories of gold under Section 3 of the 1986 Act.
The Court directed the appellant to furnish her bank details to the respondent’s counsel within three working days. The respondent must remit the amount directly to her bank account and file an affidavit of compliance within six weeks. Failure to comply will make the respondent liable to pay interest at 9% per annum.
Case Title: Rousanara Begum vs. S.K. Salahuddin @ SK Salauddin & Anr.
Case No.: Diary No.60854 of 2024
Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Vishnu Kant Tiwari
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, and Dharmendra Kumar Nirankari
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
