Kochi: In a hugely significant judgment, the Kerala High Court ruled that gold ornaments and cash gifted to a bride at the time of marriage are to be treated as her exclusive property or ‘Streedhan’, and must be returned to her in the event of divorce from her husband.
Hearing a petition filed by a woman from Ernakulam’s Kalamassery, challenging a family court’s ruling that had denied her claim for return of gifts and ornaments following divorce proceedings, the high court reaffirmed the legal right of women over such possessions.
A division bench comprising Justices Devan Ramachandran and MB Snehalatha observed that “unfortunately there are numerous cases where such valuable possessions are misappropriated by husband or in-laws.”
“Due to the private and often informal nature of such transfers, it becomes merely impossible for women to produce documentary evidence proving ownership or misappropriations. In such a situation the courts have to rely on the principle of preponderance of probabilities to deliver justice,” the court said.
Insisting on rigid legal proof would be unrealistic in such cases, the court pointed out.
The woman had contended that she was given 63 sovereigns of gold and a two-sovereign chain by her family during her marriage in 2010, along with six sovereigns of gold gifted by relatives. She alleged that except for the mangalsutra, a bangle and two rings she used regularly, all her other ornaments were taken to her parents-in-law’s room under the pretext of safekeeping.
Subsequently, the relationship soured over alleged non-payment of Rs 5 lakh cash that was demanded by her husband.
The woman presented before the court documents that showed the gold had been purchased with money her parents had deposited in a fixed deposit. In its verdict, the high court directed 59.5 sovereigns of gold, or its current market value, be returned to the petitioner by her husband.
However, the court rejected the woman’s claim of the additional six sovereigns of gold supposedly presented by her relatives, as she could not provide proof.
The high court highlighted the broader implications of such cases, observing that gold given to a bride at the time of marriage is often retained by the husband or his family under the guise of safekeeping or as part of family customs.
“The woman rarely gets a written record or receipt for such transfers and the woman’s access to her own ornaments can be restricted. When disputes arise, especially in cases of domestic violence, dowry harassment or divorce, the woman may claim that her gold ornaments have been misused or never returned. However, since she seldom receives the list or acknowledgment of the items given to her, proving ownership becomes difficult. Courts have to understand this practical difficulty and cannot insist on rigid legal proof as in criminal cases,” the court said.
