Legal Rights Over Stridhan: Supreme Court Ruling on Dowry and Property Claims

The case of Mulakala Malleshwara Rao & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr. revolves around the dispute regarding a woman’s stridhan and whether her father could initiate criminal proceedings for the recovery of gifts given at the time of marriage. The Supreme Court examined the maintainability of the complaint and ultimately quashed the case, setting a precedent on the rightful ownership of stridhan and the scope of criminal proceedings in such matters.

The appellants sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The key issue before the Court was whether the father of a divorced woman had the right to file a criminal complaint for the recovery of her property when she herself had taken no such action.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s Arguments

The complainant, who was the father of the divorced woman, argued that:

• At the time of his daughter’s marriage in 1999, he had given her 40 Kasula gold and other valuables, which were entrusted to her in-laws.
• After his daughter’s divorce in 2016 and her subsequent remarriage in 2018, he had requested the return of these valuables, but the request was ignored.
• The former in-laws had wrongfully retained these items, constituting criminal breach of trust.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents (former in-laws) contended that:

• The marriage ended in 2016 with a mutual settlement and division of assets as part of a Separation Agreement in the United States.
• The complaint was filed five years after the divorce and three years after the daughter remarried, raising questions about its validity.
• The father had no legal standing to file the case, as stridhan legally belongs to the woman, and she alone had the right to claim it.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined various legal precedents regarding stridhan, including:

• Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar (1985) – A woman has absolute ownership over her stridhan and can dispose of it as she wishes.
• Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997) – Stridhan remains the sole property of the wife, and neither the husband nor his family members have any rights over it.
• Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Section 14) – A Hindu woman is the absolute owner of her property, whether acquired before or after marriage.

The Court held that the father had no legal standing to claim his daughter’s property. It noted:

• The daughter had not authorized her father to act on her behalf through a power of attorney.
• The delay in filing the complaint (over five years after the divorce) suggested ulterior motives rather than genuine grievance.
• The criminal justice system should not be used as a tool for harassment or personal vendettas.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings, ruling that:

• The father had no locus standi to file the complaint.
• No evidence showed that the in-laws had misappropriated the property.
• The allegations were unsubstantiated and lacked legal merit.

The judgment reinforces the legal principle that a woman’s stridhan is exclusively hers, and legal claims over it must be pursued by her directly, not by third parties.

Petitioner Name: Mulakala Malleshwara Rao & Anr..
Respondent Name: State of Telangana & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice J. K. Maheshwari, Justice Sanjay Karol.
Place Of Incident: Telangana.
Judgment Date: 28-08-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: mulakala-malleshwara-vs-state-of-telangana-&-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-28-08-2024.pdf