Wife entitled to streedhan even after dissolution

As long as the status of the aggrieved person remains and streedhan remains with the husband, the wife can claim under the PWDV Act

In a significant ruling on protecting the rights of married women, the Supreme Court on Friday held that a wife is entitled to get back her streedhan, given to the husband at the time of marriage, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act even after the dissolution of the marriage.

A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant said: “It is quite clear from a catena of judgments that there is a distinction between a decree for divorce and decree of judicial separation. In the former, there is a severance of status and the parties do not remain as husband and wife, whereas in the latter, the relationship between husband and wife continues and the legal relationship continues as it has not been snapped.”

Writing the judgment, Justice Misra said: “We are of the considered opinion that as long as the status of the aggrieved person remains and streedhan remains in the custody of the husband, the wife can always put forth her claim under Section 12 of the 2005 PWDV Act. We are disposed to think so as the status between the parties is not severed because of the decree of dissolution of marriage. The concept of ‘continuing offence’ gets attracted from the date of deprivation of streedhan, for neither the husband nor any other family member can have any right over the streedhan and they remain the custodians.”

Referring to the rejection of appellant Krishna Bhatacharjee’s application by the courts below at the threshold, the bench said it should be borne in mind that a helpless and hapless “aggrieved person” under the 2005 act approaches the court under compelling circumstances. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise facts from all angles, whether a plea advanced by the respondent to nullify the grievance of the aggrieved person is really legally sound and correct.

The bench said: “Before throwing a petition at the threshold, it is obligatory to see that the person aggrieved under such a legislation is not faced with a situation of non-adjudication, for the 2005 act is a beneficial as well as assertively affirmative enactment for the realisation of the constitutional rights of women and to ensure that they do not become victims of any kind of domestic violence.”

In this case the marriage of the appellant was solemnised with the first respondent Sarathi Choudhury on 27.11.2005 and they lived as husband and wife. As there was demand of dowry by the husband including his relatives and, demands not being satisfied, the appellant was driven out from the matrimonial home. With the efflux of time, the husband filed a petition seeking judicial separation before the Family Court in Agartala and it was granted.

The appellant approached the magistrate court for return of stridhan, which was rejected on the ground that she had been judicially separated. This order was upheld by the Tripura High Court. The present appeal is directed against this order. Allowing the appeal, the Bench remitted the matter back to the magistrate for deciding the issue afresh in the light of this judgment.