'Stridhan' is woman’s own property, even without documents: Kerala HC

Kerala High Court has ruled that gold and cash gifted to a woman at the time of her marriage constitute her ‘Stridhan’ and are her exclusive property. The court added that women cannot be expected to furnish strict documentary evidence when seeking the return of such assets.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M B Snehalatha observed that courts must rely on the preponderance of probabilities in such cases, as tangible proof is often absent due to the informal nature of such transactions.

“Due to the private and often informal nature of the transfers, it becomes almost impossible for women to produce documentary evidence proving ownership or misappropriations. In such a situation, the courts have to rely on the principle of preponderance of probabilities to deliver justice,” the Bench noted.

The court explained that preponderance of probability involves assessing which side’s version appears more credible rather than demanding conclusive evidence. The judgment was issued in an appeal filed by a woman who claimed that 65½ sovereigns of gold given to her during her marriage were still in her husband’s custody.

She sought the court’s intervention to have them returned. The couple had been living separately due to marital discord. The husband contested her claim, arguing that she had taken all her ornaments with her when she left the marital home.

According to the wife, 63 sovereigns of gold were gifted by her parents during the wedding, her husband was given a chain weighing 2 sovereigns, and another 6 sovereigns of gold ornaments were presented by her cousins. She stated that within three days of the wedding, all her jewellery—except a few she wore regularly—was moved to her in-laws’ room.

The court noted that evidence existed to prove that a fixed deposit in the name of her parents had been used to purchase the gold ornaments. It further pointed out that the financial capacity of the parents to gift 65 sovereigns of gold at the time was well established. The Bench saw no grounds to reject the wife’s claim regarding the 63 sovereigns gifted by her parents and the two sovereign chains given to her husband.

The wife also deposed that she left her marital home with her parents for pregnancy-related care and never returned due to issues with her husband. The court found it “highly improbable” that she would have taken her gold with her at that point.

However, the court held that she had failed to prove the claim of 6 sovereigns allegedly gifted by her cousins. Her additional demand for the return of household articles was also denied due to the absence of evidence showing those items were misappropriated.

In conclusion, the court ruled that the woman successfully proved her husband retained 59½ sovereigns of her jewellery and directed that the same be returned to her.