Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.**
Pratibha Rani, Appellant
Versus
Suraj Kumar and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 684 of 1982, D/-12-3-1985.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. C. Mahajan, Sr. Advocate; Mr. N. S. Das Bahl, Advocates with him for Appellant; Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Advocate for Respondents. Mrs. U. Kapoor, Advocate for the Intervenor.
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 125, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 406 405 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 27 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14 - Partnership Act, 1932 - Section 4 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - O. 32-A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 2 - Property - Legal Property of Woman - Brief discussions of nature, character and concomitants of stridhan - In instant case, part of stridhan which is absolute property of a married woman during coverture - Sir Gooroodas Banerjee in Hindu Law of Marriage and Stridhana while describing nature of stridhan quoted Katyayana - Neither husband, nor son, nor father, nor brother, has power to use or to aliene legal property of a woman and if any of them shall consume such property against her own consent he shall be compelled to pay its value with interest to her - Whether dowry or traditional presents given to her, were to be individually owned by her or had been gifted to husband alone or jointly to couple - Whether or not a clear allegation of entrustment and misappropriation of properties was made by appellant in her complaint - Whether ingredient of "entrustment" exists in such cases - Whether given by gift or will, she is absolute owner and can deal with it in any way she likes – Held, In absence of such a separate agreement for specific entrustment of property of either spouse appropriate remedy would appear to be by way of a civil suit where there is scope for parties to marriage coming together at instance of relation, elders and well-wishers and patching up their differences - Entertaining complaints of irate wife or husband against husband or wife without even an allegation of a specific and separate agreement constituting entrustment of property of wife or husband would have disastrous effects and consequences on peace and harmony which ought to prevail in matrimonial homes - It may be stated that none was brought to notice of this Court either in course of arguments in this appeal - This would show that spouses had not lightly rushed in past to criminal courts with complaints of criminal breach of trust against other spouses though in day-to-day life there must have been numerous instances where wife had used property or cash of husband for purposes different from one for which they were given by husband to be applied by wife and vice versa – Court is anxious that no light-hearted change should be brought about in position and that minimum requirement in such cases is a specific separate agreement whereby property of wife or husband was entrusted to husband or wife and or his or her close relations - In absence of such a specific separate agreement in complaint, in present case, Court is of opinion that learned single Judge was perfectly justified in following decision of Full Bench in Vinod Kumars case and quashing wifes complaint filed against husband and his close relations - Appeal allowed.
The legal document discusses the legal concept of stridhan, which is the property of a Hindu married woman that she owns absolutely during coverture. It emphasizes that such property remains her exclusive ownership, and her husband, or other relatives, do not have the authority to use or alienate it without her consent. The document clarifies that unless there is a specific agreement entrusting her property to her husband or relatives, the property is not considered joint or partnership property during marriage (!) (!) (!) .
It also addresses the misconception that the entry of a woman into her matrimonial home transforms her stridhan into joint property. The law recognizes that even in the matrimonial home, a woman’s property retains its individual ownership unless explicitly entrusted through a formal agreement (!) (!) (!) . The presumption of joint possession or control during the existence of the marriage or the matrimonial home is not sufficient to establish criminal breach of trust under the relevant sections, unless there is clear evidence of entrustment and dominion (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the document underscores that criminal liability for misappropriation or conversion of a woman’s property (such as her stridhan or dowry) requires proof of an entrustment—meaning the property was handed over in a fiduciary capacity—and that the accused dishonestly converted it to their own use (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . It stresses that mere custody or possession during marriage does not amount to entrustment or passing of dominion sufficient to constitute an offense under the relevant criminal laws (!) (!) .
The document also highlights that the law provides civil remedies for the recovery of stridhan property if it is refused or misappropriated, and criminal proceedings are justified only when there is clear, specific evidence of entrustment and dishonest conversion. It cautions against a broad interpretation that would treat the property as joint or partnership property simply because it is kept in the matrimonial home or used jointly, as such an approach would be contrary to the established legal principles of Hindu law and the intent of the criminal statutes (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In summary, the law does not presume that a woman’s property becomes joint or entrusted to her husband merely by her entry into the matrimonial home or joint use. Instead, there must be explicit, evidence-based proof of entrustment and dominion for criminal breach of trust to be established. The property remains her individual ownership unless such specific agreements or actions are demonstrated (!) (!) (!) .
Judgment
FAZAL ALI, J. (for himself and Sabyasachi Mukharji J.) (Majority view):- Sometimes the law which is meant to impart justic and fair play to the citizens or people of the country is so torn and twisted by a morbid interpretative process that instead of giving haven to the disappointed and dejected litigants it negatives their well established rights in law. The present case reveals the sad story of a helpless married woman who, having been turned out by her husband without returning her ornaments, money and clothes despite repeated demands, and dishonestly misappropriating the same, seems to have got some relief by the Court of the first instance but to her utter dismay and disappointment when she moved the High Court she was forced like a dumb-driven cattle to seek the dilatory remedy of a civil suit such was the strange and harsh approach of the High Court, with due respect, which seems to have shed all the norms of justice and fair play. Even so, the High Court is not much to be blamed because in the process of following precedents or decisions of doubtful validity of some courts, it tried to follow suit. It may be stated that even the old classic Hindu law jurists and celebrated sages conceded certain substantial rights to the women, one of which was what is called Saudyika or stridban, with which we are concerned here.
2. This now brings us to a brief discussions of the the nature, character and concomitants of stridhan. In the instant case, we are mainly concerned with that part of stridhan which is the absolute property of a married woman during coverture. Sir Gooroodas Banerjee in Hindu Law of Marriage and Stridhana while describing the nature of stridhan quoted Katyayana thus :
"Neither the husband, nor the son, nor the father, nor the brother, has power to use or to aliene the legal property of a woman. and if any of them shall consume such property against her own consent he shall be compelled to pay its value with interest to her, and shall also pay a fine to the king..................Whatever she has put amicably into the hands of her husband afflicted by disease, suffering from distress, or sorely pressed by creditors, he should repay that by his own freewill."
(p. 341)
3. At another place while referring to the nature of a husbands rights over stridhan during coverture, the author referring to Manu says thus :
"......and by the law as expounded by the commentators of the different schools, the unqualified dominion of the husband is limited to only some descriptions of the wifes property, while as regards the rest he is allowed only a qualified right of use under certain circumstances specifically defined."
(p. 340)
4. Similarly, while describing the nature of stridhan generally, which is known as saudayika the author says thus :
"First, take the case of property obtained by gift. Gifts of affectionate kindred, which are known by the name of saudayika. stridhana, constitute a womans absolute property, which she has at all times independent power to alienate, and over which her husband has only a qualified right, namely, the right of use in times of distress."
5. The entire classical text on the subject has been summarised by N. R. Raghavachariar in Hindu Law (5th Edn) at page 533 (Section 487) where the following statement is made :
"487, Powers during Coverture - Saudayika, meaning the gift of affectionate kindred, includes both Yautaka or gifts received at the time of marriage as well as its negative Ayautaka. In respect of such property, whether given by gift or will, she is the absolute owner and can deal with it in any way she likes. She may spend, sell or give it away at her own pleasure by gift or will without reference to her husband and property acquired by it is equally subject to such rights. Oridinarily, the husband has no manner of right or interest in it. But in times of extreme distress, as in famine, illness or imprisonment, or for the performance of indispensable duty the husband can take and utili
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
