Case Note On Prathiba Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar & Anr.

Anushka Sail & Arundhuti Mukherjee, O.P Jindal Global University

Citation: AIR 1985 SC 628, 1985 SCR (3) 191.

Petitioner: Pratibha Rani

Respondent: Suraj Kumar &Anr.

Bench: Justice Fazal Ali, Justice Mukharji and Justice Vardarajan

Date of judgment: 21st March 1985

ABSTRACT

Since generations, gender inequality and disparities have existed in practically all communities. In Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar & Anr., we are dealing with a married lady who was secluded by her husband, who refused to return her Stridhan despite repeated requests and notices.

FACTS:

The appellant, Pratibha Rani, married the first respondent, Suraj Kumar at Ludhiana on February 4, 1972, according to Hindu rites and customs in front of respectable members of the society. The second respondent, Krishan Lal is the brother of Respondent No.1. Respondent No. 3 is Rattan Chand who is the father of Respondent No. 1&2. Respondent No. 4&5 were Chander Kumar and Vishwinder Kumar respectively, who were the brothers of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.6 is Jugal Kumar who is the brother-in-law of the first respondent. All the above-mentioned respondents attended the wedding of the appellant and the first respondent and asked for dowry from the appellant’s parents for consideration of marriage. The appellant’s parents entrusted to the respondent’s dowry articles worth Rs 60,000 in the form of gold, clothes and other valuable items at the time of ‘Doli’ as ‘Stridhan’ on February 5, 1972. In order to extract more money from the appellant’s parents, the six respondents started harassing and beating the appellant. The respondents even turned out the appellant and her children in 1977. After intervention of the Panchayat, Respondent No.1 brought back the appellant to the matrimonial home after signing an undertaking which said that he would not misbehave with the appellant anymore. But soon after, the respondents started misbehaving and harassing the appellant. The respondents then left the appellant to Ludhiana and forcefully retained all the items given to the appellant at the time of her marriage as Stridhan. The appellants then filed for proceeding under section 125, CrPC and served notice to the respondents to return the items given to the appellant as Stridhan. After repeated notices, the respondents refused to return the items. Thereafter the respondents filed a proceeding in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings initiated by the appellant and cognizance of which had been taken by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 406 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court passed the judgement in favour of the respondents thus quashing the proceedings against them. The appellant had therefore appealed against the judgement of the High Court in the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

• The Hindu view of 'Stridhan' and the rights of a partner and his family over the Stridhan have been questioned.

• The issue of the legal partnership which was created between husband and wife as combined owners of the 'Stridhan' was debated and if the trustee i.e., the husband has any right over it?

• If an actual contract of partnership exists was questioned?

• Will the husband's failure to surrender the 'Stridhan' on his wife's repeated insistence constitute a criminal breach of trust under Section 405?

RULE:

· Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.- Criminal breach of trust.

· Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955- Disposal of Property.

· Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956- Property of a female to be her absolute property.

ANSWER:

1. A Hindu married woman has absolute right over her ‘Stridhan’

2. The concept of partnership is entirely different from that of husbands keeping the Stridhan in his custody. The husband can only use it in specific circumstances and has to restore it after use.

3. There is neither any pleading nor any allegation that after marriage the appellant transferred her property to her husband for caring on a partnership business in accordance with the provisions of the Partnership Act.

4. Yes, a husband’s failure to surrender the Stridhan even after repeated notices will amount to section 405 of IPC i.e., Criminal breach of trust.

APPLICATION:

The first issue which talks about whether women have an absolute right over her Stridhan has been addressed by the court by delving into the several classical texts which talk about the nature of Stridhan. For example some of the text quoted in the judgement were Sir Gooroodas Banerjee’s Hindu Law of Marriage and Stridhan, NR Raghavachariar’s Hindu Law, Mulla’s Hindu Law etc. Each text clarifies the fact that Stridhan refers to gifts of affectionate kind which are given to a woman at the time of her wedding. She is the absolute owner of those gifts and can do whatever she wants to at her own will. Neither the husband nor her relatives have the power to use or alienate any of those items without the consent of the woman. It is only in case of distress like famine, illness or imprisonment can the husband take and utilise the Stridhan for his personal use but eventually the husband has to restore the value of the Stridhan. In this particular case, after perusing the list of items given to the appellant in the form of Stridhan, the judges came to the conclusion that the ornaments, sarees and other articles cannot be used by the husband and had to be returned to the appellant after repeated notices to the respondents to return the items which belonged to the appellant in the first place. The court had also emphasised on Section 14 of The Hindu Succession Act which talks about women being absolute owners of a property which included the Stridhan. Hence the issue of whether a woman can be an absolute owner of property was well addressed by the court.

The second issue which was highlighted was whether in a matrimonial home the Stridhan of the woman becomes a joint property of both the husband and the wife. The Court answers the question by stating that although some articles were meant to be jointly used by both the husband and wife, the mere common use and enjoyment cannot have the effect of the husband assuming joint control and ownership of the articles of Stridhan. The High Court had bifurcated the articles of Stridhan according to the exclusivity of the usage by the woman. The High Court had pointed out that the articles which could be exclusively used by the woman, the woman has an absolute right over those properties. But in case of articles are used by both the husband and the wife the ownership of the same would be held jointly by the husband and the wife. But that does not mean that the ownership of the articles would be held jointly.

The third issue which was addressed was whether a contract of partnership existed between the husband and wife when she shifts to her matrimonial home and her Stridhan is in the custody of her husband. The Court have stated that the relationship of a husband and wife is not the same as that of a partner. The court has stated that in a partnership there is a business which is carried on and the profits are shared between partners. In this case there was no sharing of profits. Only the Stridhan was in the custody of the husband, this does not make the husband a partner and therefore he would not be a joint owner of the woman’s Stridhan.

The fourth issue which arose in this case was whether the mere fact that a husband and a wife live together in the matrimonial home mean that one of the two cannot commit a breach of trust and the other person will not be liable for all the consequences which arise out of that breach of trust. The Court decided that a matrimonial home is not alien to any criminal charges against either of the parties. Crimes which are committed in the matrimonial home are punishable as much as they are anywhere else. In case of Stridhan property as well, the title of the items remains with the woman and if in case the husband or the relatives use the Stridhan property and fail to return it to the woman then the members of the family would have committed a criminal breach of trust which is an offence under 405 and 406 of IPC. The court has applied common sense and stated that when a newly married woman moves to the matrimonial home for the first time, she cannot obviously keep all her personal belongings locked under her supervision. This would portray a spirit of distrust towards her husband and his relatives. She therefore would keep her Stridhan in the custody of her husband. But mere custody of the wife’s property would not mean transfer of ownership or joint ownership of the wife’s Stridhan. The Court therefore in this case states that the respondent had committed a criminal breach of trust under Section 405 and 406 of the IPC by not returning the appellant’s Stridhan when she asked for it and found the judgement of the High Court regarding the inapplicability of the said sections, to be erroneous.

CONCLUSION:

The ratio of the judgement was 2:1

· MAJORITY:

Justice Fazal Ali and Justice Mukharji on the majority side. The majority was of the view that a Hindu married woman is the absolute owner of her Stridhan property and may do anything she wants with it. Normally, the husband has no right or interest in it, with the exception that he may use it in times of grave suffering, such as famine, illness, or the like, but he is ethically obligated to restore it or its value whenever he is able to do so. It was further noted that the husband's shared ownership of 'Stridhan' did not create any formal organisation or co-ownership between the husband and his wife. To avoid the application of Section 406 IPC, a married woman's property cannot gain the title to the joint property of both the husband and the wife as soon as she joins her matrimonial house. The Supreme Court also ruled that refusing to restore the 'Stridhan' property would be a criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. It went on to say that while civil law provides a remedy, criminal law provides a contemporaneous redressal to those who have been wronged. They criticise the judgement of the high court stating that it seems to be inspired by a spirit of male chauvinist as they were willing to exclude the husband from criminal liability just because his wife had refused to live in her matrimonial home. The Supreme Court thus held that according to the majority opinion, entrusting the 'Stridhan' to the husband without bestowing any rights on him other than the protection of the "Stridhan' does not grant him the authority to use it to the detriment of the wife.

· MINORITY:

In this case, Justice Vardarajan was the minority judge. He believed that criminal breach of trust in matrimonial property could not be the case because the property was handed over as a trustee. There is no clear agreement between the husband and wife, and there is no notion of a definite title. It's difficult to tell if the property was given to the husband for simple entrustment or dominion. He said that when multiple civil remedies are available, a criminal breach is unnecessary since it would destroy several relationships because there would be no possibility for a settlement.

SOCIAL ANALYSIS:

As the name suggests ‘Stridhan’ is the wealth of a woman. To understand the importance of stridhan it is necessary to go back in time when women did not have the right to hold property or dispose off property at their own will. It was only in later 1930’s after the inception of Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 when women were given the right to hold property. Hence it was important for women to have something of their own which would empower them to some extent. Thus, the concept of Stridhan becomes very important. The essence of the gifting of stridhan to women is to provide them security during their lifetime. Atrocities against women were prevalent during since ancient times. Women were harassed physically and mentally. They were completely dependent on their husbands. Women not having any right over any sort of property made them vulnerable to atrocities like sati, abandonment of wives etc. Ancient scripts like Manu, Smritis, Shrutis etc. have emphasized on how Stridhan forms a very important aspect in the lives of women in a patriarchal set up. Women have been subjected to male dominance over succession rights. Majority of Hindu rituals do not include women. Women being a part of the family were not even considered a part of the coparcenary and were not given a share in the property held by the family. It was only in 2005 when women were a part of the coparcenary, and she was given a share on devolution. Before that the role of a woman was reduced merely to the caretaker of the property held by the male members of the family. Considering such unfair practices, women needed some form of security over which they could have had an absolute right.

The financial dependence of women to the male members of the family has been continuing since ages. For her basic needs she had to depend on her husband. At such times, her Stridhan comes in handy. Although India has progressed over the period, but a lot of women are financially dependent on their husband and their in-laws which is why the concept of Stridhan is still quite prevalent. The idea of stridhan is basically to give women some right and authority over property which would be exclusively owned by the woman herself.

The question is whether the right of the absolute ownership of stridhan changes after a woman gets married. Although it can be said that some items in Stridhan can be used by both the husband and wife it does not mean that the ownership of the same can be shared by both. It has been reinstated by courts from time to time that stridhan is an exclusive property owned by woman. It has been witnessed that since the Prohibition of Dowry Act has been incorporated, the groom’s side of the family has been forcing the bride’s side to give dowry in the form of Stridhan. This practice of forceful asking of dowry in the form of Stridhan defeats the purpose of Stridhan. Hence Pratibha Rani vs Suraj Kumar becomes a landmark judgement in stating the fact that stridhan is an absolute right of the woman. Being a part of the matrimonial home should not mean that woman must share the property of her Stridhan just like the fact that woman do not become a part of the coparcenary when they get married hence there should be no question of woman sharing ownership of her stridhan.

Another argument which is put forth by the male members of a coparcenary that when a woman receives Stridhan from her in-laws which belongs to the family of the husband, post devolution of the property, she receives a share in the property as well. This is said to be unfair to the male counterparts as she receives more property compared to that of the male members of the family. This argument has been fueled by the Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005 post which women were acknowledged as coparceners. This means that a woman would receive a share from the coparcenary of her maiden family along with Stridhan which she receives from both sides of the family and upon partition in the husband’s family gets a share equal to that of her son. This issue can be solved by first addressing the fact that Stridhan is born out of affection and love towards the daughter, wife or daughter-in-law and is different from coparcenary property. Therefore, the gifts which she receives from her father’s side at the time of marriage should not be mixed up with coparcenary property. Secondly, the gifts which she receives from her husband’s family if they form a part of the coparcenary property of the family, then upon partition, the share of the wife would be adjusted to the amount of Stridhan received by her at the time of her marriage and the adjusted amount of shared would then be divided within the branch of coparcenary she is a part of. Hence it can be said that no form of injustice happens to the male members of the family.

Women going to their matrimonial home is a difficult transition in their lives. When she goes to her matrimonial home for the first time carrying all the Stridhan she received at her wedding, keeping all of it in her possession shows mistrust towards her in-laws. Therefore, women usually keep her belongings with their in-laws. But here it is important to note that keeping custody of the Stridhan does not shift the ownership of the same. If this starts to happen, then a woman would never trust her in-laws in keeping her Stridhan safe. This would lead to creation a lot of family feuds which defeats the concept of an ideal family which has been propagated since ages.

Stridhan, therefore, plays a very important role in a woman’s life. The question of Stridhan being an exclusive property of a woman should be implied as previously stated the core idea of Stridhan is to provide security to women. Although society has progressed a lot, the concept of Stridhan still exists as the evils of patriarchy is still quite prevalent and not every woman has also progressed hence, they need to be protected in some way by giving them an exclusive right when it comes to holding of property. Therefore, the absolute right of Stridhan should be with women. This makes the case a landmark case in reinstating the reason why women have an absolute right over Stridhan.