The Court said that it must adopt a construction which secures the dignity and financial protection of a Muslim woman post her divorce.
On Tuesday, December 2, the Supreme Court ruled that a divorced Muslim woman has the right to reclaim the cash and gold ornaments her father gave to her husband at the time of marriage, as protected under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh overturned a Calcutta High Court decision that had earlier denied the woman’s claim for ₹7 lakh and the gold items listed in the marriage register (qabilnama) as gifts from her father to her former husband.
The appellant and the respondent were married in 2005. Following their separation in 2009 and subsequent divorce in 2011, the appellant initiated proceedings under Section 3 of the 1986 Act seeking recovery of ₹17.67 lakh — consisting of ₹7 lakh in cash and 30 bhories of gold recorded in the marriage register as gifts given by her father to the bridegroom.
However, the High Court dismissed her application on the ground of a minor discrepancy between the testimonies of the Kazi (marriage registrar) and the appellant’s father. While the Kazi deposed that the marriage register mentioned the amount given without identifying the recipient, the appellant’s father asserted that the money had been handed directly to the respondent (the bridegroom).
The Court observed that the Marriage Registrar’s testimony, corroborated by the original records, could not be disregarded on the basis of mere suspicion or speculation.
“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.
While construing Section 3 of the 1986 Act, the Court underlined that the properties given at the time of marriage, as contemplated under Section 3(1)(d), are intended to secure the financial welfare of a divorced Muslim woman. Accordingly, the provision must be interpreted in a manner that advances this protective purpose.
Section 3(1)(d) grants a divorced Muslim woman the right to receive “all properties given to her before, at the time of, or after marriage by her relatives or friends, or by the husband, his relatives, 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 further remarked that the provision must be construed in harmony with a woman’s right to dignity and autonomy, as 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.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the Respondent was directed to transfer the amount directly to the wife’s bank account. The Court further clarified that failure to comply with this directive would result in the levy of interest at 9% per annum.
