Woman Absolute Owner Of Stridhan, Father Cannot Seek Its Recovery From In-Laws Without Her Authorization: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held recently that Stridhan is the exclusive property of the woman, and her father cannot claim recovery of Stridhan from in-laws without explicit authorisation from her.

"...the jurisprudence as has been developed by this Court is unequivocal with respect to the singular right of the female (wife or former wife) as the case may be, being the sole owner of 'stridhan'. It has been held that a husband has no right, and it has to then be necessarily concluded that a father too, has no right when the daughter is alive, well, and entirely capable of making decisions such as pursuing the cause of the recovery of her 'stridhan'", the Court observed.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol quashed an FIR filed by the father of a divorced woman seeking the recovery of her 'stridhan'—gifts and ornaments given at the time of marriage—from her former in-laws.

“We find that the law provides for a situation where a woman may, in law, grant a person of her choosing the authority to do any act which she may herself execute. Section 5 of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882, provides as under:- “5. Power-of-attorney of married women.—A married woman, of full age, shall, by virtue of this Act, have power, as if she were unmarried, by a non-testamentary instrument, to appoint an attorney on her behalf, for the purpose of executing any non testamentary instrument or doing any other act which she might herself execute or do; and the provisions of this Act, relating to instruments creating powers-of-attorney shall apply thereto. This section applies only to instruments executed after this Act comes into force.” It cannot be disputed that no such power of attorney, within the meaning of this Act, stood executed by the complainant's daughter, in favour of her father, respondent No.2”, the Court observed.

The Court further observed that the FIR, filed more than five years after the woman's divorce and three years after her remarriage, lacked merit.

The complainant filed the complaint against his daughter's former in-laws, accusing them of withholding her 'stridhan'—which included 40 Kasula gold and other articles given at the time of her marriage in 1999. The daughter had divorced her husband in 2016 and remarried in the United States in 2018.

Despite the passage of time and the settlement of all marital issues through a Separation Agreement at the time of the divorce, the father filed the FIR in January 2021, alleging that the in-laws had not returned the 'stridhan.'

A charge sheet was filed for offence under Section 406 of the IPC for criminal breach of trust and under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The former in-laws approached the Telangana High Court to quash the proceedings. The High Court, on December 22, 2022, refused to quash the FIR, finding the allegations in the charge sheet to be prima facie triable. Thus, the accused filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court considered whether the father had any locus standi to file the FIR. The Court emphasized the established legal principle that 'stridhan' is the exclusive property of the woman.

The Court cited several precedents, including Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Rashmi Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, Maya Gopinathan v. Anoop SB and Mala Kar v. State Of Uttarakhand which affirm that a woman has absolute ownership over her 'stridhan,' and neither her husband nor any other relative can claim any rights over it. The Court further noted that under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a Hindu female is the absolute owner of her property, which includes 'stridhan.'

The Supreme Court found that the FIR failed to meet the criteria for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC. The Court noted that there was no evidence that the complainant had entrusted the 'stridhan' to the appellants or that they had dishonestly misappropriated it. The Court also observed that the FIR was filed with a significant delay, with no satisfactory explanation provided for the delay.

The Court pointed out that the Separation Agreement between the daughter and her former husband had explicitly resolved all issues, including the division of personal belongings, at the time of their divorce. The Agreement included a clause releasing both parties from any further claims, and thus the charge under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not made out, the Court held.

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and the subsequent criminal proceedings, emphasizing that the law should not be used as a tool for vendetta.

“We may further observe that the object of criminal proceedings is to bring a wrongdoer to justice, and it is not a means to get revenge or seek a vendetta against persons with whom the complainant may have a grudge…It is also to be noted, in the FIR the authorities are requested to take action against the appellant for not returning the gifts given by the complainant to his daughter at the time of the marriage, however, in the charge-sheet such a complaint turns into a demand of dowry and being pressured into incurring expenses for marriage related functions. The question that is to be answered is that when the point of genesis is separate and distinct, how does the end result turn into something that is entirely foreign to the point of genesis?”, the Court stated.

Case no. – Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3981/2023

Case Title – Mulakala Malleshwara Rao & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 621