STRIDHAN signifies the property which belongs to woman this property includes the gifts given to her post marriage or at the time of marriage by her father or relatives. On this property woman holds absolute ownership without any interference of her husband or in-laws on this property. Modern legal system in India recognize a woman’s right to her STRIDHAN like Hindu Succession Act of 1956 provides protection and clarity regarding women’s property rights.
STRIDHAN is considered as dowry by many people as they think that woman’s property is owned by her in-laws. After the development of women property rights in India, which was established with the motive provide legislature to the women that they can feel the sense of security, authority and ownership of property.
Recently A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta of Supreme Court said STRIDHAN property does not become a joint property of the wife and the husband. Husband has no title over the property rather in any emergency. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court stated that husband has a moral obligation to return it to his wife.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
In this case, the woman blamed that on the very first night of their marriage her husband took all her jewellery and gave them to his mother for safekeeping. She alleged that her husband and his mother misappropriated the jewellary to discharge their pre-existing financial liabilities.
Later, the Family Court in 2011 stated that the husband and his mother are liable for misappropriation of the gold and the wife is entitled to have the loss caused to her.
But the Kerala High Court overruled family court’s decisions by stating that woman is not able to establish the misappropriation of gold by her husband and his mother.
Then woman filed appeal in the Supreme Court against Kerala High Court and after that the bench gave judgment in the favor of the woman by not making STRIDHAN a joint property.
This case refers that husband and his family has no right to snatch wife’s property on their interest. The Family Court believed on the woman about her allegation and did not question her presence at the time barred claim. But the top court established the concept of trust between spouses and the woman from day one did not trust the husband is rather improbable. The apex court said the woman had initiated action towards recovery of money 8.90 lakh rupees. Then Supreme Court reiterated while directing the man to pay 25 lakhs to woman in return for her lost gold.