The Court said that it must adopt a construction which secures the dignity and financial protection of a Muslim woman post her divorce.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (December 2) ruled that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to recover the cash and gold ornaments given by her father to her husband at the time of marriage, as safeguarded under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh overturned a Calcutta High Court judgment that had previously rejected the woman’s demand for ₹7 lakh and the gold ornaments listed in the marriage register (qabilnama) as gifts made by her father to her former husband.
The appellant and the respondent were married in 2005. After their separation in 2009 and eventual divorce in 2011, she initiated proceedings under Section 3 of the 1986 Act to recover ₹17.67 lakh — comprising ₹7 lakh in cash and 30 bhories of gold mentioned in the marriage register as items presented by her father to the bridegroom.
The High Court dismissed her petition due to a minor inconsistency between the testimonies of the Kazi (marriage registrar) and the appellant’s father. Although the Kazi stated that the marriage register reflected the amount given without specifying the recipient, the appellant’s father maintained that the money had been handed directly to the respondent (the bridegroom).
The Court noted that the Marriage Registrar’s testimony, backed by the original records, could not be discarded on the basis of mere doubt or conjecture.
“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 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), serve to protect the financial well-being of a divorced Muslim woman. Therefore, the provision must be interpreted in a manner that furthers this protective objective.
Section 3(1)(d) entitles a divorced Muslim woman 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 observed that the provision must be interpreted consistently with a woman’s right to dignity and autonomy, as protected 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 Court also made it clear that non-compliance with this direction would attract interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
