The Supreme Court has set aside a Calcutta High Court order and restored a woman’s statutory right to recover ₹7,00,000 and 30 bhori gold ornaments given at the time of her marriage, holding that such property falls squarely within Section 3(1)(d) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
Appellant, who married in 2005 and separated in 2009 before obtaining divorce in 2011, had sought recovery of money and articles given at the time of marriage. After multiple rounds of litigation, the trial court and sessions court had upheld her claim, relying on qabilnama and the marriage registrar’s testimony. The High Court, however, reversed these findings based on the father’s earlier statement in a Section 498A IPC proceeding that the amounts were given to the groom. This has prompted the appellant to appear before the Supreme Court.
The Court noted that the issue before it was whether goods given to a daughter at the time of her marriage by her father, or even to the bridegroom, can, by application of law, be returned to the daughter upon divorce.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh rejected the High Court’s approach, noting that the father’s statement had already been relied upon in a separate criminal trial that ended in acquittal, diminishing its evidentiary weight. In contrast, the marriage registrar’s testimony, confirming an erroneous entry and clarifying that the amount was not specifically intended for the groom, stood unrebutted. The Court held it was incorrect for the High Court to discard this evidence merely on suspicion.
Emphasising the social justice objective of the 1986 Act, the bench noted that the law must be interpreted to uphold the dignity, equality, and financial protection of divorced Muslim women, especially in contexts where patriarchal barriers persist. The High Court, the Supreme Court observed, had “missed the purposive construction goalpost” by treating the issue as a mere civil dispute.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed the respondent to transfer the amount directly to the appellant’s bank account, with compliance to be filed within six weeks. Failure to do so would attract 9% interest per annum.
