RB News World Latest News
Related Articles
New Delhi: The woman has the right over the jewellery and other items given to her at the time of marriage. The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a woman is the sole owner of her ‘stridhan’, the gold jewellery and other items given by her parents at the time of marriage. The court said that even the woman’s husband does not have any right over the ‘stridhan’. After divorce, if the woman is healthy and capable of taking decisions, then even her father does not have any right over the ‘stridhan’.
What is ‘stridhan’
The Supreme Court said this after hearing a case filed regarding ‘stridhan’ after divorce. Let us tell you that ‘stridhan’ is the thing that a woman gets during marriage. Such as jewellery and other items.
What is the whole matter
Actually, P Veerabhadra Rao of Padala, Telangana’s daughter got married in December 1999 and the couple went to America. Veerabhadra Rao had given many jewellery and gifts to the daughter during the marriage. After marriage, there was a rift between the woman and the husband in America and both of them got divorced after 16 years of marriage. The daughter got married again. Veerbhadra Rao filed a case against the daughter’s former in-laws and claimed his right on the ‘stridhan’. Later this matter reached the Supreme Court.
The former in-laws approached the Telangana High Court to cancel the FIR. When they did not get relief there, they appealed to the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court. The bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol quashed the case against the in-laws and said that the father has no right to demand his daughter’s ‘stridhan’ back. Because it was completely his.
Justice Karol said this in the judgment
Writing the judgment, Justice Karol said, “The generally accepted rule, which has been judicially recognized, is that the woman has absolute rights over the property. It is clear with regard to the sole right of the woman (wife or ex-wife as the case may be) being the sole owner of the ‘stridhan’. The husband has no right to take it.
Justice Karol said that another important element against the father’s claim was that he was not authorized by his daughter to initiate action for the recovery of his ‘stridhan’. The court also found that the father had not produced any evidence of having given any ‘stridhan’ to his daughter at the time of her marriage in 1999 and the parties to the marriage had never raised the issue of ‘stridhan’ in their separation agreement of 2016. The Supreme Court said, “There is no evidence that the claimed ‘stridhan’ was in the possession of the daughter’s in-laws.
