When a marriage breaks down, the emotional toll is often followed by a tangled web of legal proceedings. One issue that frequently surfaces but is often misunderstood is the right to recover streedhan, or the property a woman receives before or during marriage. A recent ruling by the Allahabad High Court highlighted the question of how claims regarding the return of Streedhan should be handled.
When understood closely, the ruling drew a firm line between what a spouse can claim during their divorce proceedings and what cannot be sought independently later.
What Is Streedhan?
Before diving into the ruling, it is worth clarifying what streedhan really means. In Hindu law, it refers to property, movable or immovable, that a woman receives at any point before, during, or after her marriage, whether from her parents, in-laws, or others. This could be jewellery, gifts, cash, or any other valuables. The law recognises her absolute ownership over this property. No one, not her husband, not her in-laws, has a right to it.
Advertisement
What was the case?
The High Court was hearing the plea of a man who was directed by a lower court to pay Rs 10.54 lakh in lieu of returning streedhan in a case involving a dissolved marriage. His argument was that the direction was given improperly under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, outside of any ongoing divorce trial. He also pointed out that he had already paid a significant sum: Rs 6 lakh earlier, and an additional Rs 1 lakh via a demand draft.
As per the ruling document, the respondent (his former wife) had made claims for the return of her streedhan, alleging that her jewellery was forcibly taken and that she was driven out of her marital home. The claims were supported by photocopies of her jewellery receipts and an FIR from 2014, which included charges under Sections 498A and 326B of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Advertisement
However, at the time of the hearing, the High Court cited some critical legal and evidentiary gaps in the earlier judgment.
What Did The Court Say?
The question exposed by the Court was whether Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act allows for a standalone claim for streedhan, without any ongoing matrimonial proceedings.
The Bench, comprising Justices Arindam Sinha and Avnish Saxena, ruled that it does not.
They referred to both the Supreme Court ruling in Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam v. Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam (AIR 1997 SC 3562) and a Chhattisgarh High Court judgment in Babita @ Gyatri v. ModPrasad @ Pintu (AIR 2018 Chh 40).
Advertisement
The judges underscored that Section 27 only empowers a court to include directions about joint property or gifts given at the time of marriage within a decree of divorce or other matrimonial order and that it cannot be invoked independently.
It was also noted that, when such standalone applications under Section 27 are allowed for consideration, it might turn it into a separate legal remedy, which (in this case) it was not.
The Court also highlighted issues with the family court’s treatment of the evidence. They noted that the jewellery receipts submitted by the respondent (wife) were mere photocopies, not originals, and there was no justification given for why they were accepted as valid evidence.
Advertisement
More importantly, while the respondent accused the appellant of forcibly taking her jewellery, she had admitted during cross-examination that he was not even present in town at the time of the alleged incident. Despite this, the Family Court concluded that the receipts, though copies, were enough to estimate the value of streedhan owed.
The judges noted that mere purchase receipts do not prove who is in possession of the jewellery or that it was forcibly taken.
What does this ruling say about Steedhan Laws?
Women seeking return of streedhan must bring up the issue during a divorce or other matrimonial proceeding. It cannot be treated as a standalone claim under Section 27.
If streedhan has not been addressed in the divorce decree, the recourse may lie in other laws such as criminal proceedings (like dowry harassment) or separate civil suits, but not a lone application under the Hindu Marriage Act.
To put things into perspective:
Under Section 25, a spouse has the right to apply for direction on maintenance, either by monthly or gross sum.
Section 27, gives right to the Court to pass a decree to include provisions in it with respect to any property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to the parties.
In this particular case, the High Court set aside the earlier Rs 10.54 lakh order, noting that the respondent had already recovered Rs 7 lakh directly, and Rs 2.1 lakh through execution proceedings. These amounts, the Bench said, should be adjusted against the prior maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC.
This ruling is not about denying a woman her rightful property; rather, it reinforces the importance of due process, evidentiary standards, and judicial consistency.It also serves as a reminder to both litigants and lawyers that streedhan claims must be carefully presented within the broader structure of matrimonial litigation, not as a legal afterthought.
