SUPREME COURT: WIFE'S STRIDHAN OWNERSHIP UPHELD IN LANDMARK RULING

In a significant judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 24.04.2024 in the case of “Mayagopinathan Vs. Anoop S.B & Anr. SLP © No.13398/2022” has held that the wife has absolute ownership of her stridhan, and same could be recovered in a civil proceedings from the husband if stridhan has been misappropriated.

FACTS OF THE CASE.

A. Marriage of the appellant and the first respondent was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs on 4th May 2003. For both of them, it was their second marriage. While the appellant was a widow, the first respondent was a divorcee. According to the appellant, 89 sovereigns of gold were gifted to her by her family at the time of marriage. Additionally, after the wedding, the appellant’s father (“P.W.2”, hereafter) made over to the first respondent a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) through a demand draft dated 26th July 2004.

B. According to the appellant, on the first night of marriage (i.e., on 4th May 2003) itself, the first respondent took custody of all her jewellry and entrusted the same to the second respondent under the garb of safekeeping. It was also the case of the appellant that all such jewellry stood misappropriated by the respondents to discharge their pre-existing financial liabilities.

C. In the course of time, owing to inter-se disputes and differences, the spouses drifted apart. In 2009, the appellant filed an original petition (O.S) no.10 of 2009 before the Family Court for the recovery of the value of jewellery, and the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) which was paid by P.W.2 to the first respondent. The appellant also filed a petition for dissolution of marriage3. The respondents filed a counterclaim for Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand) as the value of a gold ring and gold chain which the first respondent customarily gifted to the appellant during the wedding ceremony.

D. The Family Court, vide common judgment dated 30th May 2011, held that the respondents had indeed misappropriated the appellant’s gold jewellery and that she was entitled to recoup the loss caused to her by the said misappropriation. The Family Court while allowing the appellant to recover Rs. 8,90,000/- (Rupees eight lakh ninety thousand) as the value of 89 sovereigns of gold from the respondents, also directed the first respondent to recompense to the appellant Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) with 6% interest per annum from the date of institution of the proceedings till realization within 3 (three) months.

E. Additionally, the Family Court by a decree of divorce dissolved the marriage between the parties and dismissed the counterclaim of the respondents as well. The Family Court held that the ring and chain presented by the first respondent to the appellant was in the nature of a gift and the appellant could not be compelled to surrender it to the first respondent.

F. Aggrieved by the decree of the Family Court allowing the appellant’s claim with respect to recovery of the value of the gold jewellery as well as directing the first respondent to return Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) to the appellant with 6% interest, the respondents moved the High Court in appeal. There was, however, no challenge to the decree for dissolution of marriage. 

G. The High court, vide the impugned judgment, while partly setting aside the relief granted by the Family Court held that the appellant had not been able to establish misappropriation of gold jewellery by the respondents. It was, inter alia, observed by the High Court that there was no documentary evidence to prove the acquisition of gold jewellery by the appellant’s family, and it characterized the testimony of the appellant as unreliable being riddled with inconsistencies and gaps in the narrative. However, the High Court upheld the direction of the Family Court whereby the first respondent was required to return Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) to the Appellant.

H. The appellant has taken exception to this judgment of the High Court in the present appeal on multiple grounds. The task before the Supreme Court was limited to determining whether the appellant was able to establish misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and whether the High Court committed an error in setting aside the relief granted to the appellant by the Family Court.

OBSERVATION OF THE COURT:-

1. Having taken a close look at the materials on record and the conclusions drawn by the High Court on the basis thereof, we have little doubt in our mind that the impugned judgment is legally unsustainable. This is because of an erroneous approach adopted by the High Court by demanding a standard of proof as if it were seized of a criminal trial as well as by basing its findings on assumptions and suppositions which, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be borne from the evidence on record. Also, though the judgment of the Family Court delved deep into the evidence to arrive at reasonable findings, we have noted with some degree of distress that the High Court criticized the judgment as one rendered without taking into consideration the factual foundations of the case and by jumping to conclusions.

2. First and foremost, we have found the High Court to have attributed a lack of bona fide on the part of the appellant solely on account of the petition being filed in 2009 although cohabitation of the spouses had ended in 2006 itself. In concluding so, the High Court erred to take into consideration the explanation proffered by the appellant and P.W.2 that a substantial amount of time after separation was spent to attempt reconciliation; and it is with the fervent hopes of such attempts at reconciliation succeeding that legal proceedings were not initiated. Matters of matrimony can rarely be said to be simple or straightforward; hence, human reaction as per a mechanical timeline before the sacred bond of marriage is severed is not what one would expect. Divorce, majorly, in Indian society is still considered a stigma, and any delay in the commencement of legal proceedings is quite understandable because of the attempts made to have the disputes and differences resolved; more so, in a case of the present nature, when the appellant was faced with the imminent prospect of termination of her second marriage. Even otherwise, the appellant did not present before the Family Court a time-barred claim. Doubting the bona fide of the appellant, on facts and in the circumstances, was thus not called for.

3. Secondly, the High Court held the appellant’s failure to lead documentary evidence to support the purchase of 89 sovereigns of gold, which she allegedly brought with her to the matrimonial home, as fatal. To our mind, the approach is entirely indefensible. The version of the respondents with regard to the retention of custody of jewellery by the appellant has been noticed in paragraph 10 (supra). Although we accept as probable that the jewellery had not been weighed, there is no escape from the conclusion that the respondents did admit the appellant having brought with her sufficient jewellery constituting stridhan. The dispute was raised firstly with regard to quantum and secondly, with regard to custody. How far is the version of the first respondent believable that on the night of the wedding, the appellant put her jewellery in an almirah and locked the same, with the keys being kept below the pillow? To find an answer, we pose a question to ourselves: for a person of ordinary prudence, is it reasonable to expect a woman, who is freshly married and intends to live in the same house and under the same roof with her husband, to keep her personal belongings like jewellery, etc. under her own lock and key, thus, showing a spirit of distrust to the husband right after the moment she gets married? The answer cannot be in the negative. On the contrary, the circumstance that the husband had volunteered to take custody of the jewellery for safekeeping with his mother appears to be more plausible than the rival version considering the probabilities that are associated with similar situations. The very concept of marriage rests on the inevitable mutual trust of the spouses, which conjugality necessarily involves. To assume that the appellant from day one did not trust the first respondent is rather improbable. The High Court, thus, failed to draw the right inference from facts which appear to have been fairly established. That apart, we have neither been shown nor do we know of any binding precedent that for a claim of return of stridhan articles or money equivalent thereof to succeed, the wife has to prove the mode and manner of such acquisition. It was not a criminal trial where the chain of circumstances had to be complete and conclusively proved, without any missing link. Undisputedly, the appellant had brought to the matrimonial home a sufficient quantum of jewellery, which she wore during the marriage and as is evidenced from photographs being Ext. A3 series; and, having regard thereto, the High Court committed a serious error in first doubting and then disbelieving the appellant’s version on the specious ground that documents proving acquisition thereof by P.W.2 had not been produced.

4. Further, the High Court grossly erred in retuning inherently contradictory findings. While casting doubt on the version of the appellant that the first respondent had never exhibited love or affection for her and that the jewellery was taken by him on the first night itself without even sparing the gold chain that was given to her, it held against the appellant by remarking that if indeed “that be so, there was no chance for giving Rs.2 lakh to the 1st appellant (the husband) on 26.07.2004 i.e. after about one year of their marriage” (underlining ours, for emphasis). Such a finding was recorded even though at a later stage, the High Court itself noted the admission of the first respondent of receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) which he was ready to return. We regret, the High Court allowed its vision to be blurred and its focus of attention got diverted from the points in dispute. On the issue of whether the first respondent misappropriated the appellant’s jewellery, the High Court decided in favour of the first respondent on the basis of four conclusions – first, that the appellant had led no evidence to prove existence of financial liabilities on the first respondent’s part so as to warrant the sale of her jewellery; secondly, comparison of photographs being Ext.A3 series on the one hand and Ext.B3 on the other showed that the appellant was wearing similar jewellery on both occasions, thus, establishing her continuous possession of the same; thirdly, the appellant’s sister-in-law, whose jewellery the appellant claims to be wearing in Ext.B3 photographs, was not examined and this was held adversely against her; and fourthly, it was the appellant who admittedly owned a bank locker prior to her marriage, while there was no such locker owned by the first respondent, making it probable that it was the appellant who had taken the jewellery and kept them in her locker. We propose to deal with each of these conclusions individually.

5. On the aspect of the first respondent’s financial liabilities and the existence of the same, we find that the High Court imposed a greater burden on the appellant than was warranted. The appellant could gain awareness of the same through multiple informal ways, whereas obtaining documentary proof would be well-nigh an impossible task especially if such liabilities pre-dated the marriage of the parties. It was in the evidence of the appellant that during the pre-marriage negotiations, the first respondent had disclosed his involvement in business activities in Kozhikode. In view of the conduct of the first respondent subsequent to marriage, we do not consider that anything more was required to be proved by the appellant. The avarice of the first respondent is evidenced by the acceptance of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh), which would not have occasioned unless a demand was made to the appellant’s family. Acceptance of the said amount more than a year after the marriage, which was admitted by the first respondent, speaks volumes about his conduct. The first respondent’s contention that he had not made a demand for the money and was only given the same pursuant to a pre-marriage promise made by the appellant’s family, was disproved before the Family Court and against this finding the first respondent did not appeal. In view of such conduct of the first respondent, it is thus highly probable that there existed a monetary need, in fulfillment whereof, the appellant’s jewellery would have been sold.

6. We now proceed to discuss the much-contested photographs being Exts.A3 and B3 series. Upon conducting a detailed scrutiny of the colour photographs on record, we cannot help but note the significant differences in the jewellery worn by the appellant at her wedding, and that at her brother-in-law’s wedding. While the appellant is adorned with multiple pieces of jewellery on her own wedding as evidenced by Ext.A3, in Ext.B3 we find the appellant to be comparatively scantily ornamented, wearing a meager two necklaces, both of which make no appearance on the appellant’s person in Ext.A3. There exists a marked contrast in the jewellery worn on both occasions and based on our appreciation of photographs being Exts.A3 and B3 series, it is the appellant’s narrative of events we believe and accept to be true. Nonexamination of the appellant’s sister-in-law, whose borrowed jewellery the appellant claims to be wearing in Ext.B3, is an insignificant lacuna in the appellant’s case and cannot be held to be fatal to it in the light of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case.

7.  Black’s Law Dictionary defines entrustment as: “To give (a person) the responsibility for something after establishing a confidential relationship”. It is the appellant’s contention that she entrusted all 89 sovereigns of gold jewellery to the first respondent on the assurance that his mother would keep it safely for the appellant. What was required to be proved is entrustment of the property in the hands of the husband. 89 sovereigns is a substantial amount of gold, and as a newly-wed bride entering a new home, it would have been only natural for the appellant to trust her newly-wed husband’s word and entrust the custody of such precious jewellery to him. It is evidently borne by the depositions of the witnesses that the appellant did not permanently gift or transfer the jewellery to the first respondent, and only for safekeeping that the custody of the jewellery was handed over. The Family Court, thus, rightly concluded that there being an element of entrustment, disposal, and non-return of such jewellery by the first respondent would constitute misappropriation. Based on the evidence on record, we too are inclined to the view that it is indeed probable that the appellant made over-possession of her jewellery to the first respondent in the firm belief that they would remain in the safe custody of his mother.

8. The fourth ground was taken by the High Court, i.e., possession of the jewellery vesting in the appellant and not the first respondent, merely on the basis of the appellant admittedly owning a bank locker prior to marriage, thus giving her a place to store the jewellery, is yet again an explanation which is more conjectural than factual, for which reason we find ourselves unable to agree with it.

9. Although some doubt was cast regarding the weight of jewellery that the appellant claimed to have brought with her and there was the absence of evidence (except oral) regarding its accurate weight, the High Court once again committed an error in failing to resolve the issue on this front because of its prejudgment from the inception that the appellant’s approach smacked of lack of bona fide. The appellant had been married before and it is in the evidence of P.W.2 that the appellant had 50 sovereigns of gold from her first marriage and that P.W.2 assured to supplement it. Not only could this evidence be demolished in the course of cross-examination, it was corroborated by the evidence of the first respondent in the sense that he too testified having been told by P.W.2 during pre-marriage negotiation of due existence of 50 sovereigns of gold in the appellant’s locker. In view of such evidence, doubt cast by the High Court even to the extent of 50 sovereigns of gold, which the appellant already had, seems to be unwarranted. It was further assumed by the High Court that it was not believable for a newly married woman to be deprived of all gold jewellery on the first night itself. We have no reason to agree with such a conclusion drawn by the High Court. Greed is a powerful motivator and has spurred humans to commit crimes far dastardly. We, thus, do not find it outside the realm of human possibility for a husband to commit against his wife such unacceptable and undesirable acts, which were alleged. In light of the same, it can hardly be disputed that the appellant was indeed in possession of at least 50, if not 89, sovereigns of gold jewellery when she crossed the threshold of the matrimonial home on the fateful night of 4th May 2003.

10. It is further evident from the photographs, i.e., Ext.A3 series that the appellant is wearing a considerable amount of gold jewellery. Curiously, the respondents did not question the nature, quality, and valuation of the gold jewellery. It was never the respondents’ case that the jewellery which adorned the appellant during the wedding ceremony was not gold, but merely imitation jewellery. This peculiar omission on the part of the respondents, to our minds, only lends further plausibility to the case made out by the appellant that it was gold jewellery that she wore, and that such gold jewellery could have weighed 89 sovereigns.

11. Besides, the High Court unfortunately failed to notice and appreciate what the counterclaim of the first respondent before the Family Court precisely was. Therein, he demanded the return of the ring and the gold chain gifted by him to the appellant, as was customary, at the time of marriage. It is well established that gifts made to the bride by the bride’s husband or her parents or by relatives from the side of her husband or parents, at the time of marriage, constitute her stridhan. It was, thus, rightly held by the Family Court that the first respondent could lay no claim over the same since there was nothing to suggest that the jewellery was a gift merely temporary in nature, with its return being expected in the future. The first respondent’s rapacious conduct, as glaringly evidenced in the counterclaim filed by him, afforded sufficient ground for the Family Court to draw adverse inference against him and the High Court patently fell in error in interfering with a well-written reasoned decision of the Family Court.

12. The case is one fit for a remand and normally we would have ordered so. However, having regard to the lapse of time since proceedings were instituted by the appellant before the Family Court (it has been in excess of a decade and a half), we considered it fit and proper not to delay a decision further which made it necessary to consider the evidence in the case. Notwithstanding the infirmities, which are not considered not too serious or significant so as to defeat the claim of the appellant, we are of the opinion that weighing the evidence on the record is what they are and on a preponderance of probabilities, it is the appellant who has established a stronger and more acceptable case.

FINDING OF THE COURT.

1. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment of the Family Court that the appellant is entitled to relief is accepted.

2. The appellant had successfully initiated action towards the recovery of money in lieu of 89 sovereigns of gold, which in the year 2009 was valued at Rs 8,90,000/- (Rupees eight lakh ninety thousand). The mere upholding of the decree of the Family Court at this distance of time, without anything more, would bring about injustice to her. Bearing in mind the passage of time, the escalation in cost of living, and in the interest of equity and justice, we deem it fit in the exercise of power conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution of India to award to the appellant a sum of Rs 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-five lakh). We hope and trust that such financial recompense would provide to the appellant (presently aged 50 years), comfort and security for her future life.

3. The first respondent shall pay Rs 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-five lakh) to the appellant within six months from the date, failing which he shall be liable to pay to the appellant interest @ 6 % per annum on the said sum from this date till the date of full payment. In default of payment as indicated above, the appellant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings for realization thereof in accordance with law.

4. With the aforesaid modification of the decree of the Family Court, the appeal stands allowed to the extent mentioned before. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs.