VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Husband merely a custodian of Stridhan of his wife, not a joint owner. Even if placed in custody of her husband or in-laws, they would be deemed to be trustees, they are bound to return if and when demanded by her.

JUDGMENT

Fazal Ali, J. - Sometimes the law which is meant to impart justice 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 disappoint ed and rejected 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-Saudayika or stridhan, with which we are concerned here.

This now brings us to a brief discussion of 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 Katayana 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 properly 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)

2. At another place while referring to the nature of a husband's 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 wife’s property, while as regards the rest he is allowed only a qualified right of use under certain circumstances specifically defined." (p. 340)

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 woman's 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."

The entire classical text on the subject has been summarised by N.R. Raghavacharia 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. Ordinarily, 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 utilise it for his personal purposes, though even then he is morally bound to resto