NEW DELHI: Holding that a woman's father has no right to seek recovery of her stridhan, the Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a man and his wife on a claim by their daughter-in-law's father for allegedly keeping jwellery and other gifts given in marriage after five years of divorce and three years of her remarriage in the USA.
A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol said this court has been unequivocal in a series of judgments with respect to the singular right of the female (wife or former wife as the case may be), being the sole owner of ‘stridhan’.
"It has been held that a husband has no right (over stridhan) and it has to then be necessarily concluded that a father too, has no right when the daughter is alive, well, and entirely capable of making decisions such as pursuing the cause of the recovery of her ‘stridhan’," the bench said.
The court noted the delay in the FIR lodged in 2021 was not explained.
"The object of criminal proceedings is to bring a wrongdoer to justice, and it is not a means to get revenge or seek a vendetta against persons with whom the complainant may have a grudge," the bench said.
As per the facts, the marriage of the complainant's daughter was solemnised in 1999.
However, the couple, settled in the USA got divorce in 2016 in a court in a court over there by mutual consent after settling all material and financial issues. The woman got remarried also in 2018.
The bench said, "On what ground does the complainant file the subject FIR in the year 2021, is completely unexplained."
The court noted the FIR lodged by the complainant was "hopelessly belated in time".
It pointed out there was also no authorisation by his daughter to him to pursue the complaint for recovery her stridhan as mandated under Section 5 of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882.
"The action was initiated for securing possession of the articles and ornaments after a passage of more than 20 years since the date of marriage and five years after the settlement of all marital issues at the time of divorce and that too, not by the former wife, i.e., the complainant’s daughter, but by the complainant himself," the bench said.
As far as the principle was concerned, the court referred to Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which clearly stated about a Hindu female being the absolute owner of property.
After examining the facts of the matter, the court found nothing on record to indicate about possession of stridhan with the appellants.
It said none of the ingredients of the offence under Section 405 IPC or under the Dowry Prohibition Act was made out in the case.
The court set aside the Telangana High Court's judgment which declined to quash the criminal proceedings against Mulakala Malleshwara Rao and his wife.
"There is nothing on record to substantiate that the complainant’s daughter's former in-laws converted the ‘stridhan’ allegedly kept in their custody, for their own use, more so, when the parties in matrimony had never ever raised ‘stridhan’ as an issue either in the subsistence of the marriage or thereafter, especially during the time of settlement of all issues," the bench said.
