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) held that a divorced Muslim woman has the right to reclaim the cash and gold ornaments that her husband received from her father 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 set aside a Calcutta High Court ruling that had earlier denied the woman’s claim for ₹7 lakh and gold ornaments recorded in the marriage register (qabilnama) as gifts made by her father to her former husband.
The appellant married the respondent in 2005. Following their separation in 2009 and subsequent divorce in 2011, she filed proceedings under Section 3 of the 1986 Act seeking recovery of ₹17.67 lakh, which included ₹7 lakh in cash and 30 bhories of gold noted in the marriage register as items given by her father to the bridegroom.
The High Court rejected her claim on the basis of a minor discrepancy between the statements of the Kazi (marriage registrar) and the appellant’s father. While the Kazi stated that the marriage register recorded the amount given without specifying to whom it was handed over, the appellant’s father asserted that the money had in fact been given directly to the respondent (the bridegroom).
The Court observed that the Marriage Registrar’s testimony, supported by the original record, could not be disregarded on the basis of mere doubt or suspicion.
“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 underscored that the properties given at the time of marriage, as contemplated under Section 3(1)(d), are intended to safeguard the financial security of a divorced Muslim woman, and therefore the provision must be construed in a manner that advances this protective purpose.
Under Section 3(1)(d), a divorced Muslim woman is entitled 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 noted that the provision should 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 direction would result in interest being levied at 9% per annum.