Courts can't insist on rigid proof to decide women's pleas for return of stridhan: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that courts cannot insist on rigid standards of proof when it comes to deciding on petitions filed by women seeking the return of stridhan or gold given to her by her family at the time of marriage. .A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice MB Snehalatha observed that gold given to a woman at the time of marriage is often retained by her husband or his family, and that women rarely receive receipts or acknowledgments of such transfers.In such a scenario, it is practically difficult to produce documentary proof of the items given to a woman as stridhan, the Court explained. "The gold given to a bride at the time of marriage (stridhan) is often kept by the husband or his family under the guise of safekeeping of family customs. The woman rarely gets a written record or receipt for such transfers and the woman's access to her own ornaments can be restricted. When disputes arise, especially in cases of domestic violence, dowry harassment or divorce, the woman may claim that her gold ornaments have been misused or never returned. However, since she seldom receives the list or acknowledgment of the items given to her, proving ownership becomes difficult. Courts have to understand this practical difficulty and cannot insist on rigid legal proof as in criminal cases," it said. .The Bench added that in such cases, it is enough for a court to decide on the matter by examining what is the more probable view, that is, by applying the standard of preponderance of probabilities."The inability to produce documentary evidence should not be a barrier to justice, especially in cases where the social and familial norms make such evidence hard to obtain. The Courts rely on the preponderance of probability to ensure that legal system remains sensitive, fair and just. It upholds the principle that justice is not about rigid formalities but about recognising truth in its real context," it said..The Court also reaffirmed that the stridhan or gold ornaments and cash given to a woman on the occasion of her marriage, by her family is her exclusive property."The gold ornaments and cash given at the time of marriage to a bride are considered as women's 'Sreedhan' which means her exclusive property. Unfortunately, there are numerous cases where such valuable possessions are misappropriated by the husband or in-laws. Due to the private and often informal nature of such transfers, it becomes nearly impossible for women to produce documentary evidence proving ownership or misappropriation. In such situations, courts must rely on the principle of preponderance of probabilities to deliver justice," the Court added..The Court made the observation while ordering a man to return 59.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments to his estranged wife. The wife had claimed that she had been given around 63-65 sovereigns of gold by her family as stridhan when she got married in 2010.She claimed that these ornaments were shifted to the bedroom belonging to her parents-in-law for safekeeping.The marriage between the woman and her husband eventually became strained, and she moved out of her matrimonial home. She later approached the family court with a petition seeking the return of her gold ornaments and household items from the matrimonial home.The family court dismissed her plea citing insufficient proof, prompting the woman to approach the High Court for relief..On April 11, the High Court granted her relief after noting that there was material to indicate that at least 59.5 sovereigns of gold given to her had been kept by her in-laws. "The evidence on record would show that the parents of the petitioner were employed and they had sufficient financial capacity to give her 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage ... There is no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioner and her father that at the time of her marriage, she was given 63 sovereigns of gold ornaments and the respondent was given a gold chain weighing two sovereigns," it observed. .It added that even the husband did not dispute the gifting of gold at the time of marriage. Rather, he had claimed that the woman had taken it with her when she left to stay with her parents during her pregnancy. The Court rejected this claim as improbable, noting that a woman leaving for pregnancy care is unlikely to carry all her ornaments.Further, the Court rejected the husband's reliance on a WhatsApp message allegedly sent by the woman, which stated that her mother-in-law had accused the woman of taking her gold back. The Court held that the message merely referred to an allegation made by her mother-in-law..The Court proceeded to order the return of 59.5 sovereigns of gold to the woman. However, it declined to order any return of household items, noting that the woman had neither stated where those items had been kept nor produced evidence to show they were misappropriated by her husband..The woman was represented by advocates MS Unnikrishnan, VS Sreejith, K Sunil, Rinu S Aswan, M Ardra Krishnan, Aleena Maria Jose, and Susan Jacob.The husband was represented by advocates Santheep Ankarath and J Ramkumar..[Read Judgement]