The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh has set aside a Calcutta High Court judgment that denied a divorced Muslim woman the return of gold and money given at the time of her marriage. The Apex Court held that the interpretation of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 must be grounded in “social justice adjudication,” aimed at securing the dignity and financial protection of women.
The Supreme Court considered the question of “whether goods given to a daughter at the time of her marriage by her father, or to the bridegroom, can be by application of law, returned to the daughter… given that their marriage had ended in divorce.”
Allowing the appeal filed by the appellant (wife), the Bench restored the order of the Trial Court which had directed the former husband to return Rs. 8 lakhs and 30 bhories of gold ornaments. The Court observed that the High Court erred in treating the matter purely as a civil dispute and ignoring the purposive construction of the 1986 Act.
Background of the Case
The appellant and the respondent were married on August 28, 2005. Following matrimonial differences, the appellant left her matrimonial home in 2009. The marriage ended in divorce on December 13, 2011.
The appellant initiated proceedings under Section 3 of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, seeking the return of a total amount of Rs. 17,67,980/-, which included dower, dowry, 30 bhories of gold ornaments, and various furniture items.
The litigation saw multiple rounds before the lower courts:
- Original Order: The CJM allowed the application in 2014, granting Rs. 8.3 lakhs.
- Remand: The Sessions Judge remanded the matter twice for fresh consideration and additional evidence.
- ACJM Order (2017): The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bolpur, framed issues regarding the return of Rs. 8 lakhs, 30 bhories of gold, and furniture. The ACJM found the husband liable to return the money and gold based on the marriage register entries (Qabilnamas) but rejected the claim for furniture due to lack of documentary proof.
- Sessions Court: The Sessions Court upheld the ACJM’s order in 2018.
- High Court Intervention: The respondent-husband approached the Calcutta High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court allowed his petition and set aside the lower court’s findings on November 24, 2022.
The Discrepancy in Documents
The core of the dispute before the High Court revolved around two exhibits—Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8—which were entries in the marriage register.
- Exhibit 8 (Original entry): Recorded that the bride’s father gave Rs. 7 lakhs and 30 bhories of gold to the son-in-law.
- Exhibit 7: Recorded that the amounts were given but did not specify that they were given “to the bridegroom.”
The Marriage Registrar admitted this discrepancy in his testimony, stating it was an error. However, the High Court set aside the lower court’s findings, observing that the entry in Exhibit 8 tallied with the father’s statement in separate proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC. The High Court reasoned that since the father claimed to have given the items to the respondent, and the respondent was acquitted in the 498A case, the lower court’s reliance on the registrar’s testimony was flawed.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Sanjay Karol, authoring the judgment, rejected the High Court’s reasoning. The Supreme Court analyzed Section 3(1) of the 1986 Act, which entitles a divorced woman to “all the properties given to her before or at the time of marriage or after her marriage by her relatives or friends or the husband or any relatives of the husband or his friends.”
Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Daniel Latifi v. Union of India (2001), the Court reiterated that the Act overrides other laws to ensure fair provision and maintenance.
On Evidentiary Value
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for disregarding the Marriage Registrar’s testimony. The Court noted:
“The High Court records that the latter statement regarding writing and overwriting in the entry in the marriage register is proved by him having produced the same before the Court. When that is the case, we are at a loss to understand why his statement in entirety should not be accepted. Mere allegation as to his conduct being suspicious on account of overwriting in the marriage register is not sufficient to discard his testimony.”
Regarding the Section 498A IPC proceedings, the Bench noted that despite the father’s statement that he gave gold to the husband, the trial court had acquitted the husband. Therefore, the acquittal in the criminal case did not negate the evidentiary value of the father’s statement or the registrar’s testimony in the present proceedings under the 1986 Act.
On Social Justice Adjudication
The Court held that the High Court “missed the purposive construction goalpost” by adjudicating the matter as a civil dispute. The judgment stated:
“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 Court further observed:
“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.”
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court.
Directions issued:
- The Counsel for the Appellant must supply bank details to the Respondent’s counsel within three working days.
- The Respondent is directed to remit the amount (Rs. 8 lakhs and value of 30 bhories of gold as determined by the lower court) directly into the Appellant’s bank account.
- The Respondent must file an affidavit of compliance with the Supreme Court Registry within six weeks.
- Interest: If the payment is not made within the stipulated time, the Respondent shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
