Home > Recent Judgements > ‘STRIDHAN’ IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE WOMAN: SUPREME COURT
September 03, 2024
BACKGROUND
The Supreme court ruling in Mulakala Malleshwara Rao & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr. case, ‘Stridhan’ is a woman property, and her father does not have the right to seek back Stridhan from the daughter-in-law’s family unless she clearly allows him to do so. The complaint against the former in-laws of her elder daughter whom he accused of retaining the ornaments (gold) which he gifted her at the time of marriage with their son. The marriage was solemnized on 22nd December, 1999.
In notion, the marriage was rendered futile as within a span of approximately 16 years, the said marriage between the complainant and his daughter took a turn whereas, on 14th August, 2015, she filed for divorce in America. The Bench presided and granted the decree of divorce towards the petitioner/decree, applied by way of mutual consent of the Circuit court of St. Louis County, Missouri on 03rd February, 2016. On that occasion, all material, all assets, and all other needs of a tangible nature were equitably divided and settled through the terms of the Separation Agreement, which was approved. Therefore, since all matters relating to marriage are over as the daughter has remarried in the USA in May 2018. Henceforth, for convenience, the term ‘IPC’ has been used 3SLP(CRL.) NO.3981/2023
Soon thereafter, what appeared to be an ill concocted plan materialized when the complainant lodged FIR No.32 of band of 2021 under Section 406 IPC pertaining to the return of the jewellery presented at her wedding ceremonials which particularly ought to have been returned in custody of her legal guardians, but kept and handed over to her in-laws (present-Appellant).
It is also important to note the details surrounding the incident from what the complainant has reported. In the year 1999 when he was getting his daughter married, he had given forty Kasula gold and other articles. After that, the newly married couple shifted to the United States where the victim’s daughter was tortured in a consistent manner which made the complainant’s wife go through a lot of hardship and finally passed away on 6th June 2008. In 2016, 16 years after marriage, his daughter and her husband divorced.
However, the complainant’s daughter got married again in the year 2018, which brought the complainant to the US. It is claimed that upon his return, he asked his daughter’s former in-laws (appellants) for the items they had been given for safekeeping. Those requests fell lately ignored such articles remained always unrecovered.
ISSUE
Whether the father had the locus standi to file a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court has decided a few weeks ago with respect to Stridhan and its property: it is a woman who possesses such property, and her father does not have the right to seek back Stridhan from the daughter-in-law’s family unless she clearly allows him to do so.
“The jurisprudence as has been developed by this Court is rather concrete on the issue as to the absolute ethnic (whether a wife or a former wife) status of Stridhan and its ownership by a female. A husband has been held to have no rights, and it must then be necessarily concluded, that a father too, has no rights in so long as the daughter is, well, not frail, but in health and able to take decisions as to the pursuing the cause of the recovery of her ‘Stridhan’ the Court remarked.
A court of law has quashed an FIR filed by the father of a divorced woman seeking her ‘Stridhan’; this was an appeal that was put across due to the gifts and ornaments received at the marriage for her in law.
The Court went on to state that the institutional complaint, lodged more than five years after the woman divorced and retired three years after marrying again.
The complainant filed the complaint against his daughter’s former in-laws. He reported that they had not returned his daughter’s ‘Stridhan’, Which consisted of 40 Kasula gold and other articles given at the time of marriage which was in 1999. Her husband was divorced by her in the year 2016 from 2018 she was in a new marriage which is in the United States.
The objection was found to be wrong as per the Supreme Court regarding the mama’s complaint about the kidnapping and section 2 of 406 IPC as per the criteria of tort of criminal breach of trust cannot be invoked and pursued successfully. The Court further found out that there was no evidence that the complainant has ever handed over the ‘Stridhan’ to the appellants or that the appellants ever surreptitiously converted to their own use. Further the Court observed that about the crime against the Bureau of immigration of complainant, the complaint was made too late, there was no reasonable explanation for the wanted import.
The petition that was lodged at the country’s apex court reversed the decisions that had been made regarding the filing of the FIR and the subsequent criminal process. It let the said terrorists go free on the understanding that he would amend the constitution to prohibit the use of the law as a form of revenge.
ANALYSIS
So that is to say, in regard to Section 406 IPC, whenever a cognizable offence is registered, it is not visible on the face of the record. Moreover, the fact that this action is being taken more than 5 years from the date of divorce of complainant’s daughter and about 3 years from the date of her second marriage also serves to illustrate that this particular action is very much out of time.
On the circumstances narrated above thus we also find that the charge under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is not made out and hence fails. Therefore, the only conclusion drawn from the undertaken proceedings is that, the complainant (CC No.1369/2022) had instituted proceedings against the present appellants, which are indeed quashed. Since there is no supervision, any action thereby taken is null and void. Therefore, the questions sought to be raised in this appeal are so answered.
The appeal is allowed as above. The impugned judgment dated 22nd December 2022 in Criminal Petition No. 11528 of 2022 between the same parties is upheld whereas the complaint has been quashed & set aside. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
