Supreme Court
New Delhi: Jewellery and other items given to a woman at the time of marriage are the sole rights of the woman. The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a woman is the sole owner of her ‘stridhan’, gold jewellery and other items given to her by her parents at the time of marriage. The court said that even the woman’s husband has no right over the ‘stridhan’. After divorce, if the woman is healthy and capable of taking decisions, then even her father has no right over the ‘stridhan’.
What is ‘Stridhan’
The Supreme Court said this after hearing a case filed regarding ‘Stridhan’ after divorce. Let us tell you that ‘Stridhan’ is the thing that a woman gets during marriage. Such as jewelry and other items.
what is the whole matter
Actually, P Veerbhadra Rao of Padala in Telangana’s daughter got married in December 1999 and the couple went to America. Veerbhadra Rao had given many jewels and gifts to the daughter during the wedding. After the marriage, there was a rift between the woman and the husband in America and both of them got divorced after 16 years of marriage. The daughter got married again. Veerbhadra Rao filed a case against the daughter’s former in-laws and claimed his right on ‘Stridhan’. Later this matter reached the Supreme Court.
The former in-laws approached the Telangana High Court to quash the FIR. When they did not get relief there, they appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court order. A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol quashed the case against the in-laws and said that the father has no right to demand his daughter’s ‘stridhan’ back. Because it was completely his.
Justice Karol said this in the decision
Writing the judgment, Justice Karol said, “The generally accepted rule, which has been judicially recognised, is that the woman has absolute right over the property. It is clear as to the exclusive right of the woman (wife or ex-wife, as the case may be) as the sole owner of the ‘stridhan’. The husband has no right to take it.
Justice Karol said another important element against the father’s claim was that he was not authorised by his daughter to initiate action for recovery of her ‘stridhan’. The court also found that the father had not produced any evidence of having paid any ‘stridhan’ to his daughter at the time of her marriage in 1999 and the parties to the marriage had never raised the issue of ‘stridhan’ in their separation agreement of 2016. “There is no evidence to show that the claimed ‘stridhan’ was in the possession of the daughter’s in-laws,” the Supreme Court said.
Latest India News
