On 29th august, 2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment that reinforces the rights of women over their ‘stridhan’—a term referring to the gifts and property a woman receives during her marriage. The case, Mulakala Malleshwara Rao & Anr. vs. State of Telangana & Anr. (2024 INSC 639), involved a long-standing dispute between the complainant, Padala Veerabhadra Rao, and his former son-in-law’s parents. The judgment highlights key legal principles about ownership of ‘stridhan’ and the rights of women over their personal property.
Background of the Case
The dispute began when the father of the complainant filed a case against his daughter’s former in-laws for not returning gold ornaments given at the time of her marriage in 1999. The marriage ended in divorce by mutual consent in 2016, with all possessions settled through a Separation Agreement in the U.S. The daughter remarried in 2018, and it was only after this that her father lodged an FIR in 2021 against the former in-laws under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The complainant alleged that the former in-laws did not return the ‘stridhan’ entrusted to them at the time of the marriage. However, no evidence was provided to show that these items were ever in the possession of the in-laws. The case was filed without the authorization or involvement of the complainant’s daughter, who was fully capable of making her own decisions.
Supreme Court’s Key Findings
Stridhan Rights: The Supreme Court reiterated that the property or gifts given to a woman at the time of her marriage are her absolute property. The Court referred to past judgments, including Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar and Rashmi Kumar vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, which emphasize that a woman has full ownership over her stridhan. Neither her husband nor any other family member has a right to it.
Locus Standi of the Complainant: The Court questioned the locus standi (legal standing) of the complainant (the father) to file the FIR. Since the daughter was alive and had not authorized her father to pursue the case on her behalf, the Court found that he had no legal right to initiate proceedings for the recovery of stridhan.
Delay in Filing the Case: The Court highlighted the unexplained delay in filing the case. The FIR was lodged more than five years after the divorce and three years after the daughter’s remarriage. Such a delay was found to be indicative of malafide intent, aiming more at harassment than justice.
Lack of Evidence for Criminal Breach of Trust: The Supreme Court pointed out that the basic ingredients of Section 406 IPC, which deals with criminal breach of trust, were not met. There was no proof that the former in-laws had the stridhan in their possession or that they had misappropriated it.
Misuse of Legal Provisions: The Court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for harassment. The object of the criminal law is to bring wrongdoers to justice, not to settle personal vendettas. The absence of concrete evidence and the significant delay in filing the complaint led the Court to quash the proceedings.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling underscores the legal principle that a woman has an absolute right over her stridhan, and it cannot be claimed or controlled by anyone else, including her family members. It also reinforces the importance of timely legal action and the need for genuine evidence to support claims of criminal breach of trust. The judgment serves as a reminder that misuse of legal provisions to harass individuals without valid grounds can be quashed by the judiciary.
