1

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

LUCKNOW

SEMESTER-IV

PROJECT FOR Family Law-II

‘ Stridhan- The Right of Women’

Under the Supervision of: Shakuntala Sangam

Assistant Professor Law

Submitted by: Swarnim Pandey

160101156
Section B
2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have taken efforts in this project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind
support and help of many individuals. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.

I am highly indebted to Ms. Shakuntala Sangam for her guidance and constant supervision as
well as for providing necessary information regarding the project and also for her support in
completing it.

I would like to express my gratitude towards my parents for their kind co-operation and
encouragement which helped me in completion of this project.

My thanks and appreciations also go to my colleagues in developing the project and people who
have willingly helped me out with their abilities.

-Swarnim Pandey
3

CONTENTS

 INTRODUCTION
(Constituents of Stridhan)
 DOWRY V STRIDHAN
 LEGAL STATUS OF STRIDHAN
(Application under S.405 of IPC
Application under allied laws
Application of S.405 of IPC)

 RIGHTS OF WOMEN OVER STRIDHAN

 STRIDHAN AND TAXATION LAWS
 PRATIBHA DEVI v. SURAJ KUMAR CASE- SOCIOLOGICAL
IMPLICATION
4

INTRODUCTION

Stridhan is a traditional practice that was primarily meant to provide women with some level of
economic security in adverse situations like divorce, widowhood, etc. Among Hindus, it is
interpreted in various ways; in general, stridhan is defined as that portion of a woman’s wealth
over which she alone has the power to sell, gift, mortgage, lease or exchange — whole or in
parts. Usually, stridhan is passed from mother to daughter, unless the woman decides otherwise.
Any dues from her can also be recovered from her stridhan. Besides the ornaments and trousseau
given at marriage, stridhan also includes all the gifts of money, property, jewellery and so on
received by the woman before, during and after marriage from her family, her husband’s family,
friends and even strangers. It includes property inherited by the woman from her family or
husband’s family; property received by her under a compromise, adverse possession or in lieu of
maintenance; property obtained in partition; and property bought using proceeds from stridhan.
However, gifts to the husband by the woman or her relatives will not be part of her stridhan. In
the case of a working woman, the law under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
enumerates that the property acquired by means of a woman’s earnings, during her maidenhood
as well as widowhood, is her stridhan. Importantly, a woman who does not wish to accept
stridhan cannot be forced to do so; she can also choose to accept or reject the gifts given to her as
part of the stridhan.

One of the most widespread social evil that has plagued our modern society is the ‘dowry
system’. This evil has already taken the lives of many girls while many continue to suffer
because of it like slow poison throughout their lives. Even though we have to great extent
succeeded in creating awareness, the country in which we live has wide ethnic, linguistic,
cultural diversities. As such in our society people may not pay heed to the calls of any particular
organization when it comes to the eradication of social evils. It is, therefore, important that the
task to remove these evils is carried forward at the individual level in a big way.

However there is one more aspect which we need to understand and that involves the right to
avail ‘Stridhan’. We should be careful that even if dowry is denied, the bride does not lose her
right to ‘Stridhan’ and in places where she has received the ‘Stridhan, her husband does not
absorb it as his own money. There is a basic difference between ‘Stridhan’ and ‘dowry’ It is
pertinent to mention here that under the pretext of a dowry-less marriage, patriarchal parents
often deprive their girl children of equal rights to property. The parents should give the
5

daughter’s share of property in her name voluntarily to ensure financial security for an
independent life, once she leaves her parental home for good. In many well-off families, dowry
has become a tool to deprive daughters of their rightful share with a car, some gold and some
furniture while the lion’s share including land, houses, and bank balances etc. are kept
exclusively for the benefit of sons.1

CONSTITUENTS OF STRIDHAN

The word ‘’Stridhan’ has been derived from the words ‘Stri’ meaning a woman and the word
‘dhana’ means property. Therefore on combining these two words we get ‘property of woman’
her ‘Stridhan’. This is a concept, which came down all the centuries from the Hindu Smritis but
has today, engulfed all forms of marriages in all visible castes and regions.

According to the age old Smritis and all old schools of Hindu law such as Dayabhaga,
Mitakshara etc. the following was Stridhan in the hands of a woman whether she is a maiden,
married woman or widow.2

1. Gifts made to a woman before the nuptial fire.

2. Gifts made to a woman at the bridal procession

3. Gifts made in token of love by father-in-law, mother-in-law

4. Gifts made by father, mother and brother

This cannot be said to be a complete list so gifts made after marriage by a woman’s husband’s
relations or parent’s relations and gifts from sons and relations got added to the list as so did
many more as can be seen here. The question as to if a particular kind of property acquired by a
woman was Stridhan or not also depended upon the source from which the property was
acquired, the marital status of woman at the time of acquisition whether she acquired it during
her maidenhood, subsistence of marriage or widowhood. Gifts and bequests from a woman’s
relations during maidenhood, subsistence of marriage or widowhood is all to be construed as her

1
http://iitbiimb498a.wordpress.com/streedhan-proceedings-legal-evidence-required/
2
http://www.digitalbhoomi.in/forums/archive/index.php/t-10833.html
6

Stridhan. Gifts and bequests from strangers during maidenhood, subsistence of marriage
or widowhood is also Stridhan. In effecting Partition if as an absolute gift or interest in a share is
given to a woman whether during her maidenhood, marriage or widowhood the same amounts to
her Stridhan. Property inherited by a woman becomes her Stridhan or property acquired by a
woman by mechanical arts or by her own exertions during maidenhood, subsistence of marriage
and during widowhood is Stridhan. Property obtained by a woman by compromise or family
arrangement where there is no presumption of her taking only a life interest, becomes her
Stridhan3. Property obtained by a woman by adverse possession during maidenhood, subsistence
of marriage and during widowhood is Stridhan. Property purchased with Stridhan is a woman’s
Stridhan. Gifts made to husband during and after marriage are not Stridhan. In case of a dispute
over who were the gifts made to, more often than not woman is given a priority over the
husband.

For a married woman Stridhan falls under two heads4:

1. The saudayika (gifts of love and affection) – gifts received by a woman from relations
on both sides (parents and in-laws).
2. The non-saudayika- all other types of Stridhan such as gifts from stranger, property
acquired by self-exertion or the mechanical arts.

3
http://myshaadi.in/main/indian-wedding-blog/view/30/Streedhan-The-Misunderstood-Ritual
4
http://wealthymatters.com/2011/08/31/stridhan/
7

DOWRY VERSUS STRIDHAN

In a country like India, where stringent laws have even failed to completely uproot the menace of
dowry from the society, ‘Stridhan’ becomes a necessity of every woman. It is the right of
women to claim their wealth any time and use it in whichever way. Stridhan, as the name
suggests, is the wealth and other belongings of the woman which she has brought from her
parents’ house before, during or after marriage.

However it is a common misbelieve prevailing in the society regarding this age-old ritual where
parents offer their daughter her share during the marriage. Stridhan is very often misinterpreted
as dowry even when the law of the land has an entirely different definition for it. The domestic
law perceives dowry as any property or valuable security given or agreed by the bride’s side to
the family of the bridegroom before, during or after marriage, by exploiting or threatening the
girl or her family while Stridhan is voluntary gift given by members of bridal side to the bride as
a stepping stone to establish her own property. There are strict Stridhan laws and the grooms’
side may face stringent action under Section 405 & 406 of the Indian Penal Code, if they deny
returning wealth when claimed.

The Judiciary has tried to make references of two distinguished case-laws, in order to put light
on the Stridhan laws and laws against Dowry in the country.

Bhai Sher Jang Singh vs Smt. Virinder Kaur5, while hearing the case, Punjab & Haryana High
Court had ruled that the groom’s side is bound to return back all the items including property,
ornaments, money and other belongings offered by the bride’s side at the time of marriage, if
claimed. In the case of denial, the groom’s family is tending to get strict punishment.

The court found that Bhai Sher Jang Singh and his family have committed an offence under
Section 406 of IPC by committing criminal breach of trust of the ornaments and other articles
owned by Virinder Kaur which were her Stridhan and were entrusted to her husband for safe
custody and which he has dishonestly misappropriated.

5
1979 Cri. L J 493.
8

Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar6 While hearing the case, the Supreme Court observed that the
complainant (Pratibha Rani) had suffered by their in-laws when she was harassed and denied her
Stridhan by his husband’s family. The Apex Court observed that the case portrays the plight of
an estranged married woman. She even suffered large during the legal process, the court
observed. Pratibha Rani was married to Suraj Kumar on February 4, 1972. Rani’s family had
given Rs 60,000, gold ornaments, and other valuable items to the Kumar’s family on their
demand. But soon after Rani entered her marital home she was started being tortured by her in-
laws for dowry. She was forcefully kicked out of her in-laws house with her two minor children
and was denied money and other essentials for survival.7

She had lodged two complaints against her husband and in-laws under section125 Criminal
Penal Code and breach of trust. The lower court gave judgment in her favor but she got a
seatback from Punjab & Haryana High Court which was later on given in her favor by the
hon’ble Supreme Court.

6
AIR 1985 SC 628.
7
This case has been followed in following case also, Raginiben G. Tank v. Gunvantlal K. Tank & Ors. [2003 (3) G.L.R.
2027],
9

LEGAL STATUS OF STRIDHAN

1. Application u/s. 405 of IPC

The s. 405 of IPC reads as follows:

“Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property,
dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or
disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such
trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made
touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits
‘criminal breach of trust.

The offence under section 405 can be said to have committed only when all of its essential
ingredients are found to have been satisfied. As in the case of criminal misappropriation, even a
temporary misappropriation could be sufficient to warrant conviction under this section. Even if
the accused intended to restore the property in future, at the time misappropriation, it is a
criminal breach of trust.8

In Rashmi Kumar vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada9 the Supreme Court held that when the wife
entrusts her Stridhan property with the dominion over that property to her husband or any other
member of the family and the husband or such other member of the family dishonestly
misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or willfully suffers and other person to
do so, he commits criminal breach of trust.

2. Application under allied laws

i. A woman’s right to her Stridhan is protected under law. S. 14 of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 R/w S. 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 make a female Hindu an absolute
owner of such property. In the case of Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India explained the concept of ‘Stridhan’ and its legal position under
the Indian Laws. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that:

8
http://www.legalindia.in/criminal-breach-of-trust-under-ipc-a-critical-analysis
9
(1997) 2 SCC 397
10

“A Hindu married woman is the absolute owner of her Stridhan property and can deal
with it in any manner she likes and, even if it is placed in the custody of her husband or
her in-laws they would be deemed to be trustees and bound to return the same if and
when demanded by her”.

It is, therefore, manifest that the position of Stridhan of a Hindu married woman’s property
during covertures is absolutely clear and unambiguous; she is the absolute owner of such
property and can deal with it in any manner she likes-she may spend the whole of it or give it
away at her own pleasure by gift or will without any reference to her husband. Ordinarily, the
husband has no right or interest in it with the sole exception that in times of extreme distress, as
in famine, illness or the like, the husband can utilize it but he is morally bound to restore it or its
value when he is able to do so. This right is purely personal to the husband and the property so
received by him in marriage cannot be proceeded against even in execution of a decree for debt,
such being the nature and character of Stridhan of a woman10. If her husband or any other
member of his family who are in possession of such property, dishonestly misappropriate or
refuse to return the same, they may be liable to punishment for the offence of criminal breach of
trust under S. 405 & 406 IPC.

ii. Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides for women right to her Stridhan
in cases where she is a victim of domestic violence. The provisions of this law can be
easily invoked for recovery of Stridhan. Under the residence orders: Prov. (8) the
magistrate may direct the respondent to return to the possession of the aggrieved person
her Stridhan or any other property or valuable security to which she is entitled.
iii. Again u/s 18(ii) of the Domestic Violence Act the law says that a woman is entitled to
receive the possession of the Stridhan, jewellery, clothes and other necessary items. The
term ‘economic abuse’ has also been provided under the Act. It includes deprivation of
all or any economic or financial resources to which the woman is entitled under al the
existing customary laws whether payable at the concern of the court or in any other
manner. These resources are however not limited to the household necessities of the
aggrieved person.

10
http://sawaal.ibibo.com/law/what-treatment-stridhan-under-wealth-tax-act-india-675938.html
11

3. Application u/s. 498A of IPC not valid

For recovering the Stridhan, if a woman invokes S.498-A, it would be deemed as miss-use of
that section until the ingredients laid down in that provision are not satisfied. This is the reason
why Courts are continuously warning the estranged wife not to invoke S.498- A. Section 498-A
is a sacrosanct provision to protect the wife to lead normal life in matrimonial home in the new
and often foreign and sometimes hostile atmosphere. If wife’s ‘Stridhan’ is usurped by the in-
laws, then section 406 I.P.C can be used easily. S.498-A is meant to protect the wives from
physical and mental harassment for any reason including the reason of dowry demand. It does
not say, that refusal of returning Stridhan by husband or his relatives give scope to a wife to
invoke S.498-A. Even civil law suit for recovery of Stridhan can also be used by the wife to
recover Stridhan. If invoking Section 406 is utilized to recover Stridhan and further it is used
only to protect the wives, who are facing physical and/or mental harassment, then genuine
victims will get protection11. It should be noted that for recovery of Stridhan there are other
provisions in law, which are equally effective and may not spoil the relationship of husband and
wife beyond repair.

11
Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam [2004] Cri LJ 892.
12

RIGHTS OF A WOMAN OVER HER STRIDHAN

The bride has got an absolute, exclusive dominion over all her Stridhan, received during the
marriage. This includes both movable and immovable property, while she has the power to sell,
alienate or give it away as she pleases both during her lifetime and thereafter. Her husband and
in-law’s family members have no rights over a woman’s Stridhan. We need to understand that
the marriage expenses and dowry are not Stridhan as held in Ashok Laxman Kale vs Ujwala
Ashok Kale12.

It is usually practical and preferable that any girl especially educated girls of today maintain a list
of their Stridhan has also become capable of looking after their own Stridhan in terms of its
security such as opening a bank locker in their single names for the purposes of storing jewellery
and instruments of money, property etc. or keeping it under their lock and key13.

Some of the precautionary steps in keeping the check on the Stridhan could involve:

1. The woman should make a list of all the gifts and properties received before, during and
after marriage from her family, husband’s family, friends and other acquaintances.
2. The woman should keep evidence for all the gifts received such as wedding pictures.
Also, ensure that the gifts and their bills are in her name and preserve these bills.
3. The woman should have witnesses – statements of witnesses will be important evidence –
for gifts of movables (including jewellery) at the time of marriage.
4. The woman should maintain a separate account in her name for her salary.
5. The woman should get involved in the family financial decision-making and keep a
record of bank accounts and the investments made out of her Stridhan.
6. The woman should ensure that the title to the property given to her and those bought from
her Stridhan are clear and that the investments made from these assets are in her name.
7. The woman should open a bank locker in her name for storing jewellery and
instruments of money, property and so on.
8. It is advisable for the woman’s parents to gift her income-generating property,
rather than expensive consumer items. It becomes often difficult to give full detail
accounts for the consumer items.

12
AIR 2007 (NOC) 1093 (Bom)
13
http://bhartiassociates.com/faqs/index.php?action=artikel&cat=7&id=212&artlang=en
13

STRIDHAN AND TAXATION LAWS

Stridhan that has been given by a woman’s close relatives, to a certain amount, at the time of
marriage, are not attracted by Wealth Tax. The ‘Stridhan’ must be without any consideration in
return thereof. It should be written and signed by both parties meaning thereby that the person
giving it and the person receiving it in the presence of witnesses. However, Stridhan (gift) from
persons other than relatives are liable for income tax at the hand of bride and bride-groom. The
High Court of New Delhi in a very important case of Ashoke Chadha v. IOT,14 has held that
‘Stridhan’ in the form of jewelry given over a span of 25 years cannot be said to be an
unexplained investment u/s. 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961. It is a very normal feature in India,
for women to receive jewelry in form of gifts on various occasions during child-birth and
marriage and as such a large amount of jewelry cannot held to be abnormal.

14
www.lawyersclubindia.com/…/Dummies-guide-What-to-do-when-false-stridhan-list-submitted–23153.asp
14

PRATIBHA RANI V SURAJ KUMAR CASE: A SOCIOLOGICAL

IMPLICATION
1. FACTS

There was the complainant Mrs. Pratibha Rani who filed a case against her husband and her
in-laws in the Court of CJM of Ludhiana. She had been married according all Hindu customs
and that during the time of her marriage her husband’s family had demanded dowry from her
parents as consideration for the marriage. This demanded was accepted and a dowry worth
Rs. 60,000/- was given in form of jewellery. However, even after this the accused would
mistreat the complainant and eventually deserted her. Later on when complainant demanded
the articles given, as a part of her ‘Streedhan’ the accused refused to return it to her by
declaring it to be her dowry. The lower court and also the Punjab & Haryana High Court
dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the case did not attract the s.405 of IPC as the
handling over the articles to the husband did not amount to entrustment under the law. This
reasoning was given by the High Court by referring to the case of Vinod Kumar Sethi v.
State of Punjab15

2. ISSUE

The position of ‘Streedhan’ among the Hindus was questioned while the other issues that were
dealt in the case related with the rights of a husband over the ‘Streedhan’. There was also another
question that was discussed in this case. It was regarding the legal partnership being created
between husband and wife due to the joint holding of the ‘Streedhan’ property. As such whether
the refusal to return the ‘Streedhan’ property by a husband on demand from his wife would
amount to Criminal Breach of Trust u/s. 405?

3. HELD

The Accused husband in the instant case may be summoned and put on trial in accordance with
the Criminal law as under s.405 of IPC.

4. JUDGEMENT
1. Majority

It was held by the majority that the position of Streedhan among the Hindus is very clear and un-
ambiguous. In cases of ‘Streedhan’, the woman is to be treated as the absolute owner of her
property. This property is for her use and satisfaction and further it was also added that such a
property can be gifted or willed away without the consent of the husband. The Apex Court
further explained that mere joint holding by a husband of the ‘Streedhan’ property did not
constitute any legal partnership or co-ownership between the husband and his wife. The court
opined that a wife can file a civil suit under the S. 14 of Hindu Succession Act and under S. 27 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, if the husband declines to return the ‘Streedhan’ property of his wife.

15
AIR 1982 P&H 377 (FB).
15

As such the second issue was also answered that the husband has virtually no right over the
property. The utmost use he can make of property is only in time of great distress or calamity in
family involving someone’s health. Again this so-called concession given to the husband over
the property of her wife is his personal and therefore no one else in the family of the husband can
make use of the property. It has also been established by the courts that the ‘Streedhan’ property
of a woman will not be used to pay off debts taken by the husband and that this property cannot
be proceeded against in an execution of a husband.

As such keeping in view the above mentioned reasoning the Supreme Court opined that the
refusal to return ‘Streedhan’ property would amount to criminal breach of trust. The court had
accepted that civil law provides a remedy but the criminal law gives a co-extensive remedy to the
aggrieved party. According to the majority judgment, a pure and simple entrustment of the
‘Streedhan’ to the husband without creating any right in the husband excepting the safe keeping
of the items of “Streedhan’ do not give him the right to use it to the detriment of the wife.

1. Minority

This minority judgment was given by the J. Vardarajan. He was of the opinion that under the
present scheme of laws there is no separate agreement and also there is an absence of concept of
specific entrustment. Therefore it becomes difficult to draw a clear demarcation whether the
property has been given to the husband for simple entrustment of custody or it is for dominion.
As such it would be unwise to attract the stringent penal provision when at the same time there
are sufficient civil provisions to deal with such cases.

Also he opined that if a case of such nature is filed under a civil forum, there is still a scope left
for settlement between the parties. However, the application of such strict criminal provision
would even end that scope and would the smallest unit of society, the relationship of Husband-
Wife, would be destroyed.

5. CRITICAL APPRAISAL

At present the Pratibha Rani case is the only landmark judgment in regard to ‘Streedhan’ laws
that describe the applicability of s. 405 of IPC, in very detail and composure. As such it would be
quite possible that various women related social organizations must be very pleased with this
kind of case-law as now they can keep the villainous husbands at bay and our socially secure to
the extent of their ‘Streedhan’ is concerned. However we need to also look at the minority
judgment because it has showcased an aspect of society which would be really affected and such
damages have already started to happen as we see two and half decades down the line after this
judgment.

Often we have witnessed false cases wherein the brides claim money under the garb of
‘Streedhan’. Besides this the very fear which the learned minority judge apprehended is often
showing its face. The civil suit when filed in such cases leaves a scope for reconciliation but in a
criminal suit all such hopes are dashed and the family breaks up. Also there is question of
jointness and co-ownership. The issue is that when a woman brings her ‘Streedhan’ property in
her husband’s family and entrusts the property to her husband would that entrustment not be
16

presumed to be covered under presumption of jointness of custody and thereby indicating at

possession of their individual properties to the spouses together, i.e. by both of them together.
Thus the very essential ingredient of the offence of S.405 would, therefore, be lacking on
account of jointness of custody and possession of property. Accordingly as long as the bond of
the matrimony exists or there is a possibility of its revival, the offence under s. 405 should not be
entertained to maintain happiness in the family. If there is a charge in such circumstances, the
encouragement will have a damaging effect. Thus as earlier said the chances of reconciliation of
between the parties will totally end.16

Civil suit can be compromised but a criminal suit is difficult to compromise as the criminal cases
have a sense of stigma on the party which may be impossible to overcome in even in long
years. To quote Dr Ramesh L. Bhuntani17, the question remains that through this case and law
the woman might regain back her ‘Streedhan’ but will a bride be able to regain back her lost
husband.

16
http://www.caclubindia.com/experts/limit-of-stree-dhan-married-woman-s-wealth
914615.asp#.UMwYhOSE0rA
17
Criminal Breach of Trust by Husbands-Anti Dowry Case Re-viewed, (1986) 50 CTR 145.
17

REFERENCES

 Diwan Paras, Family Law ,6th edn, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad 2003
 Desai A. Satyajeet, Mulla Hindu Law, 17th edn , Butterworths India, Delhi,2000
 Seth D.D., Srinivasan’s Hindu Undivided Families , Hindu law of Coparcenary Property
,Delhi Law House, Allahabad , 1972
 Chadha Prem Nath , Hindu Law ,Eastern Book Company, Lucknow
 Jai Prakash , Supreme Court on Hindu law , Vinod Publications , Delhi .
 http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/what-is-the-definition-of-stridhan-
27371.asp#.VtGBH1t97IU
 www.498a.org/contents/general/streedhan.pdf
 shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/7870/.../09_chapter%202.pdf
 http://www.scribd.com/doc/59045392/Succession-to-the-Property-of-Hindu-
Female#scribd