Divorced Muslim Woman Entitled To Recover Gifts Given To Husband At Marriage : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (December 2) affirmed that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to recover the cash and gold ornaments received by her husband from her father at the time of marriage under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (“Act”).

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh overturned a Calcutta High Court decision that had rejected a divorced Muslim woman's claim for Rs. 7 lakh and gold ornaments mentioned in the marriage register (qabilnama) as gifts from her father to her ex-husband.

The Appellant was married to the respondent in 2005. After separation in 2009 and divorce in 2011, she initiated proceedings under Section 3 of the 1986 Act seeking recovery of Rs. 17.67 lakh, including Rs. 7 lakhs in cash and 30 bhories of gold recorded in the marriage register as having been given to the bridegroom by her father.

The High Court rejected the appellant's claim on the basis of a minor inconsistency between the statements of the Kazi (marriage registrar) and the appellant's father. While the Kazi stated that the marriage register recorded the amount given without specifying the recipient, the appellant's father asserted that the amount had been handed over to the respondent (the bridegroom)

The Court held that the Marriage Registrar's testimony, backed by the original document, could not be discarded on mere suspicion.

"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 despite such a direct statement by the father of the appellant the learned Trial Court seized of the matter acquitted the respondent... Then, it cannot be said, in our view, that the evidentiary value of that statement is either equal to or greater than the statement of the marriage registrar," the Court observed.

Interpreting Section 3 of the 1986 Act, the Court emphasized that the properties given at the time of marriage, as envisaged under Section 3(1)(d) of the 1986 Act, are meant to secure a divorced woman's future, and courts must adopt a construction that fulfills this protective intent.

As per Section 3(1)(d), a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to "all the properties given to her before or at the time of marriage or after her marriage by her relatives or friends or the husband or any relatives of the husband or his friends.”

The Court observed, "The Section quoted above deals with mehr/dower and/or other properties given to a woman at the time of her marriage- clearing the way for the woman to set up a claim against her husband in the above situations, or claim back from her husband properties given, as the case may be."

The Court added that the provision must be interpreted in line with the right to dignity and autonomy of a woman guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

"The Constitution of India prescribes an aspiration for all, i.e. equality which is, obviously, yet to be achieved. Courts, in doing their bit to this end must ground their reasoning in social justice adjudication.

To put it in context, the scope and object of 1986 Act is concerned with securing the dignity and financial protection of a Muslim women post her divorce which aligns with the rights of a women under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The construction of this Act, therefore, must keep at the forefront equality, dignity and autonomy and must be done in the light of lived experiences of women where particularly in smaller towns and rural areas, inherent patriarchal discrimination is still the order of the day.", the Court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, with a direction to the Respondent to remit the amount directly to the wife's bank account, the non-compliance of which would attract interest at 9% per annum.

Cause Title: ROUSANARA BEGUM VERSUS S.K. SALAHUDDIN @ SK SALAUDDIN & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1160

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Mr. Mohd Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jamil Husain, Adv. Mr. Tabrez Ahmad, Adv. Ms. Pooja Kumari, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Kumud Lata Das, Adv. Mr. Sukesh Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, AOR Ms. Shikha Sandhu, Adv. Ms. Pooja Rathore, Adv. Ms. Hemangi Saikia, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Ms. Shraddha Chirania, Adv.