Author:- Raghav Agarwal, a 2nd year learner at Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
ABSTRACT
Stridhan is a Sanskrit-based term related to any form of property and gifts accumulating over a woman’s lifetime, particularly in terms of marriage. Due to patriarchic norms, women have traditionally been given limited property rights. However, acceptance of Stridhan amongst the Hindu legal provisions was one significant movement towards acceptance of women’s autonomy concerning property ownership. The word ‘Stridhana’ connotes within its meaning all movable and immovable property of the wife whenever that be received in life either before marriage, at the marriage, while delivering the child, or upon widowhood. The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 radically changed the right to property enjoyed by women by giving them full ownership of the Stridhan. It thus distinguished it from the concept of ‘women’s estate’, which conferred limited rights. The Act empowers women to independently manage and alienate their property without needing male consent.
Thus, Stridhan is in total contradistinction to “dowry,” deemed obligatory. The above understanding of Stridhan was further legitimized by the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961. The judicial pronouncements, especially in leading cases, “Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar” and “Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada”, held that it is a lady’s absolute property and clarified that there would be no question of the husband’s co-ownership. The present Supreme Court judgment ‘‘Mulakala Malleshwara Rao & Anr. vs. State of Telangana & Anr.’’remained dealing with various complicated legal questions regarding the ambit of Stridhan and women’s rights.
The case was filed as a complainant for not returning the gold ornaments, which falls under the ambit of Stridhan after divorce. The Supreme Court held that the woman’s father had no locus standi to file the FIR, and the daughter must exercise such rights directly. The Court referred to the concept of Stridhan and the autonomy of a girl child as it held thus: The father cannot exercise rights over his daughter’s Stridhan during her lifetime. The judgment advances, in no uncertain terms, the legal edifice for women’s property rights in India enunciated upon broad lines of gender equality.
TO THE POINT
The word ‘stridhan’ is derived from the Sanskrit words ‘Stri’, meaning woman, and ‘Dhan’, meaning property. It refers to the property and gifts a woman obtains during her lifetime, particularly about her marriage. Historically, women in India had limited property rights, often at the mercy of patriarchal rules and norms. Stridhan emerges significantly, recognizing a woman’s autonomy in self-acquired property rights under Hindu law. Under Hindu law, Stridhan includes all movable and immovable property a woman receives at various stages in her life: before marriage, at the time of marriage, on becoming a mother, and during widowhood. At the initial stage, women did not have full ownership rights over Stridhan; they needed their husband’s consent to alienate property. The introduction of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956 marked a significant shift, as it conferred upon women unequivocal ownership of stridhan, thus differentiating it from the concept of ‘women’s estate’, which afforded women restricted rights. The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 revolutionized women’s property rights by abolishing the concept of women’s estate and recognizing women as absolute owners of their properties. Under Section 14 of the Act, any property belonging to a woman, whether a gift, inheritance or hard-earned money, is her absolute property. In such a legal framework, the woman is empowered to administer or alienate the property without the intervention of male relatives. Stridhan is sometimes misunderstood as dowry, but these concepts are essentially different. While stridhan is given to a woman of her free will without any pressure or compulsion, dowry includes the property given under pressure or as a pre-requisite by the bridegroom’s family. The Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 makes dowry illegal; hence, it confirms that the concept of Stridhan has been legally recognized as a valid and voluntary asset transfer.
Judicial interpretations have solidified the entitlements linked to Stridhan. In significant rulings, the Supreme Court has elucidated those gifts bestowed upon a woman, regardless of their origin, are classified as her Stridhan and belong solely to her. Courts have underscored that husbands are not entitled to assert co-ownership of Stridhan, thereby safeguarding women’s rights from familial assertions. Stridhan is a paramount legal system in India that empowers women by granting them proprietary rights over property. The official recognition of Stridhan marks a milestone in the struggle for gender equality about proprietary rights and reflects broader social changes regarding women’s status and autonomy.
In its landmark judgment, ‘‘Mulakala Malleshwara Rao & Anr. vs. State of Telangana & Anr.’’on August 29, 2024 with the bench comprising of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol, the Supreme Court of India answered a few complex legal questions arising out of the concept of stridhan and women’s rights in the property. This has arisen from a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3981 of 2023 whereby the order of the High Court of Telangana refusing to quash the proceedings under Section 406 of the IPC read with Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in respect of alleged non-return of stridhan was challenged.
The complaint was instituted by Padala Veerabhadra Rao (complainant) on the ground that her daughter’s earlier in-laws, the appellants, did not return gold ornaments given at the time of her marriage on December 22, 1999. On February 3, 2016, the marriage was dissolved with a mutual consent decree in divorce in the United States after about 16 years. The equitable distribution of all the marital assets was agreed upon in a Separation Agreement, and the girl married again in 2018.The complainant lodged a complaint in January 2021 because the ornaments, being stridhan, were entrusted to the in-laws but were not returned despite repeated requests. Appellants denied these allegations and took a plea that the complaint resulted from their harassment.
The apparent legal question would relate to the locus standi of the complainant to file the FIR, more so when there was such a vast and inordinate delay, apart from not being authorized by his daughter to pursue the claim on her behalf. The High Court found the allegations in the charge sheet to be prima facie triable and dismissed the petition of the appellants to quash the proceedings.
The scrutiny by the Supreme Court was the juridical status of the stridhan and the rights of women enunciated in earlier judicial decisions. The Court had relied upon ‘‘Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar’’, wherein it had been held that a woman has absolute ownership of her stridhan, including gifts received both before and at the time of marriage. The nature of the income derived from stridhan has, in Mulla’s Hindu Law, been elaborated to include many types, among which are those gifts given at the time of the marriage ceremony and by relatives. It cited the case of ‘‘Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada’’, in the process reiterating the settled legal principle that power a woman holds over her stridhanis independent of control by the husband. It is well settled in law that the husband has no rights in the stridhan, and the ratio of this legal principle extends to the rights of a father over the property of a living daughter who is capable of making her own decisions.
Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was resorted to, which says that any property a female, Hindu holds is her full-fledged property, including stridhan. The Court at once highlighted that the action for recovery of stridhan was instituted after more than 20 years of marriage and nearly five years of the divorce settlement, and that too not by the daughter, but by her father, making one raise questions regarding the complaint’s credibility. The Supreme Court, after that, referred to the Power of Attorney Act of 1882, stating that in favor of her father, there is no written power of attorney by the daughter that would make him an attorney for her in matters relating to her stridhan.
The Court then investigated the FIR under Section 406, IPC, relating to criminal breach of trust. In order to establish a charge under the said section, the following ingredients shall be satisfied:
1. The Accused was entrusted with the property or dominion over property.
2. There must be a fraudulent conversion or dispossession of the property.
3. Such conduct must contravene any legal stipulations about executing trust responsibilities. Holding that the first prerequisite was not established, for there is no evidence to prove that the complainant had entrusted the stridhan to the appellants, the fraudulent dishonest disposal was not proved, and in particular, there was no evidence that the issue of stridhan was raised either at the time of marriage or at the time of divorce proceedings. Conclusive Comments from the Supreme Court Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that no cognizable offense under Section 406 IPC was attracted against the FIR. The total lack of evidence about the entrustment of the stridhan and the failure of a claim by the daughter herself are at the fulcrum of its analysis. The Appeal is allowed; as a result, the proceedings against the appellants are quashed with a reiteration of legal principles on stridhan and women’s autonomy in property matters. It underlines the fact that during her lifetime, while she is capable of exercising her rights herself, the father cannot enforce his right over his daughter’s stridhan. However, this judgment goes a long way in settling the legal position so far as stridhan is concerned. However, at the same time, it also underlines a very relevant factor requirement of claiming direct rights over their property in tune with emerging contours of gender equality in the letter and spirit of the law.
CONCLUSION
The concept of stridhan under Indian Law is discussed, focusing on the evolution and importance it has brought about in recognizing the proprietary rights of women. It is of a Sanskrit origin, ‘stridhan’ is the property and gifts that a woman receives at marriage and any time after that.
Though traditional disincentives to female property holding were moot, many were forced to resort back to the patriarchal structures. The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 effected a direct accord change in allowing women full powers over ‘stridhan’, legally distinguished from the rights called for by ‘women’s estate’. Also, goods owned by a female under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act may be disposed of by her without the intervention of any male member. Stridhan, according to the law, is not a form of Dowry; it has to be obtained with free consent and without compulsion. Furthermore, under the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, Stridhan, a legally recognizable mode of transferring property, has been reiterated.
The judicial interpretation has always been essential in safeguarding women’s rights over stridhan. Landmark judgments, such as “Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar” and “Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada”, hold that property gifted to a woman from whatever source derived becomes her stridhan, hence the husband has no right to claim such property. The Supreme Court examines case “Mulakala Malleshwara Rao & Anr. vs. State of Telangana & Anr.”, where the Court addressed the complex legalities of stridhan and women’s rights. The case was one of non-return of gold ornaments after divorce. The Supreme Court held that the father did not have locus standi to file the FIR, and what needed to be done was for the daughter to assert her rights directly. The decision of the Court further cements the laws about stridhan and the need for women to assert their rights over self-acquired property in line with modern concepts of gender equality.
FAQ
- What is Stridhan?
Stridhan refers to the property and gifts given to a woman from birth until death, specifically by marriage, the gifts given at marriage, and before and during widowhood.
- How does Stridhan differ from Dowry?
While property given under stridhan is purely voluntary, Dowry represents property transferred under compulsion or when demanded by the groom’s people.
- What are women’s legal rights relating to their Stridhan?
The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 gives a woman absolute ownership over the Stridhan, which she can manage and alienate without seeking male consent.
- Can the husband claim right over the wife’s Stridhan?
Husbands have no rights whatsoever in the Stridhan of their wives. All judicial pronouncements have concluded that Stridhan is the absolute property of the female.
- What was the consequence of the Supreme Court judgment in Mulakala Malleshwara Rao & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr.?
The Supreme Court so ruled that a woman’s father has no legal right to file a complaint related to her Stridhan, emphasizing that women need to raise their rights themselves. The judgment reiterated some legal principles related to Stridhan and women’s independence in property issues.
