Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Rousanara Begum – Appellant
Versus
S.K. Salahuddin @ S.K. Salauddin and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 5164 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. of 2025] [Diary No. 60854 of 2024]
Decided On : 02-12-2025
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – Section 3 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Bridal gifts – Rights over, after divorce – Scope and object of 1986 Act is concerned with securing dignity and financial protection of a Muslim women post her divorce which aligns with rights of a women under Article 21 of Constitution of India – Construction of this Act must keep at forefront equality, dignity and autonomy and must be done in light of lived experiences of women where particularly in smaller towns and rural areas, inherent patriarchal discrimination is still order of the day – High Court missed purposive construction goalpost and instead proceeded to adjudicate the matter purely as a civil dispute – Constitution of India prescribes an aspiration for all, equality which is yet to be achieved – Courts, in doing their bit to this end must ground their reasoning in social justice adjudication – Judgment and order passed by High Court set aside – Amount to be directly remitted into bank account of Appellant. (Paras 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
The short question which arises for consideration in these appeals are whether goods given to a daughter at the time of her marriage by her father, or to the bridegroom, can be by application of law, returned to daughter, appellant herein, given that their marriage had ended in divorce.
Findings of Court:
What, apparently, the High Court lost sight of is the end result of the proceedings in which the said statement of the father was given. Those proceedings were concerned with Section 498A-IPC and Section(s) 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and despite such a direct statement by the father of the appellant the learned Trial Court seized of the matter acquitted the respondent, a conclusion which appears to have attained finality.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case:
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL J,
1. Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 24th November 2022 passed in CRR No. 489 of 2019 and Order dated 31st January 2024 passed in application for modification bearing No. CRAN 9 of 2023 by the High Court at Calcutta, at the instance of the Appellant herein, Rousanara Begum, who is the former wife of the Respondent No. 1-S.K. Salahuddin.1 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Respondent’]
3. The short question which arises for consideration in these appeals are whether goods given to a daughter at the time of her marriage by her father, or to the bridegroom, can be by application of law, returned to the daughter, appellant herein, given that their marriage had ended in divorce.
4. The parties to the lis were married on 28th August 2005. Differences, however, arose shortly thereafter and the Appellant departed from her matrimonial home on 7th May 2009. Subsequently, she filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘CRPC’] and initiated proceedings under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860.3 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’] The marriage eventually ended in divorce on 13th December 2011. Thereafter, she approached the Court4 [Misc. Case No. 149/2011 before Additional CJM, Bolpur District Birbhum] under Section 3 of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 19865 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘1986 Act’] seeking the return of total of Rs. 17,67,980/-. This amount was arrived at in the following terms:
It is these proceedings that, after multiple rounds, have travelled to this Court. Before proceeding to the merits of the matter, we must take note of this history.
4.1. The Learned CJM vide order dated 26th June 2014 allowed the application and granted a total of Rs. 8.3 lacs as against the claim of Rs. 17.5 lacs.
4.2. Both parties preferred revision petitions before the learned Session Judge who remanded the matter for afresh consideration allowing the evidence of marriage registrar to be entered.
4.3. On remand, the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate by order dated 23rd February 2015 once again decreed the matter in favour of the appellant granting a total of Rs. 8 lacs along with 30 bhories of gold ornaments.
4.4. Aggrieved thereby the respondent preferred the revision petition and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 21st July 2015 allowed the same and once again remanded the matter for additional evidence and fresh trial.
4.5. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bolpur in terms of judgment dated 27th April 2017 framed three issues for consideration- issues 1 and 2 concerned the amount of Rs. 8 lacs along with 30 bhories as previously awarded and issue 3 pertained to the articles that were given to the bridegroom and whether any right to recover the same existed. Issue no. 1 which particularly dealt with Rs. 1 lac as mehr was disposed of observing that the amount already stood paid by the respondent to the appellant and as such nothing survived for consideration. For issue no. 2, reference was made to Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8-two qabilnamas or entries in the marriage register. Exhibit 8 which is the original entry records that the father of the bride gave Rs. 7 lacs and 30 bhories of gold to the son-in-law. Exhibit 7 on the other hand, records that the above said amounts were given but it does not state that the same were
Bridal gifts – Goods given to a daughter at the time of her marriage by her father, or to bridegroom, can by application of law, returned to daughter, after their marriage had ended in divorce.
A divorced woman is entitled to Mahar and other properties provided under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
The trial court correctly ordered the return of marital articles, affirming the principle that property claims should be addressed equitably during divorce proceedings.
The judgment clarifies that divorced women are entitled to maintenance under both the MWPRD Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C., ensuring their financial security post-divorce.
Desertion under the Divorce Act implies abandonment against the wish of the other spouse; entitlement to maintenance must be assessed in light of circumstances surrounding the separation.
Evidence is evaluated under the principle of preponderance of probability in claims for return of misappropriated items.
Misappropriation of marital assets leads to liability for their return in matrimonial disputes.
The court affirmed the Family Court's decision to return gold ornaments and cash based on credible evidence supporting the petitioner's claims.
Talaq pronounced without reconciliation is invalid; divorced Muslim women are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, affirming Family Court's jurisdiction to hear such claims.
Responsibility for returning marriage-related assets lies with the husband, but claims require proper evidence for enforcement.
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
