ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act...: A. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – Section 3(1)(d) – Scope – Return of Properties Section 3(1)(d) entitles a div...
A. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – Section 3(1)(d) – Scope – Return of Properties
Section 3(1)(d) entitles a divorced Muslim woman to the return of "all the properties given to her before or at the time of marriage or after her marriage by her relatives or friends or the husband or any relatives of the husband or his friends."
Purposive Construction: The Act's scope and object is to secure the dignity and financial protection of a Muslim woman post-divorce, aligning with her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The construction of this Act must prioritize equality, dignity, and autonomy.
Gifts at Marriage – To Daughter/Bridegroom: Goods/amounts given by the father of the bride, even if recorded as being given "to the son-in-law" in the marriage register (qabilnama), are primarily intended for the benefit of the daughter/bride and, in the context of divorce, must be construed to be properties to which the divorced wife is entitled under Section 3(1)(d).
Evidentiary Value of Prior Proceedings: A statement made by the bride's father in proceedings under Section 498A IPC/Dowry Prohibition Act (where the husband was ultimately acquitted) concerning who the dowry was given to, does not necessarily possess greater or equal evidentiary value than the statement of the Marriage Registrar/Kazi explaining a recording error, especially when the latter's statement is backed by the production of the register.
B. Constitution of India – Article 136 – Interference with Findings
The Supreme Court, under its plenary jurisdiction, will interfere with the findings of the High Court where the High Court has missed the purposive construction goalpost of the relevant law and adjudicated the matter purely as a civil dispute, thereby failing to ground its reasoning in social justice adjudication.
Analysis of Case Facts
Case Background
The appeal arose from proceedings initiated by the Appellant, Rousanara Begum (divorced wife), against the Respondent No. 1, S.K. Salahuddin (former husband), under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 seeking the return of properties amounting to Rs. 17,67,980/-. This included dower, cash, gold ornaments (30 Bhories), and furniture.
Lower Court History (Summary)
ACJM (Original Order): Allowed the application, granting a total of Rs. 8.3 lacs (later, on second remand, Rs. 8 lacs + 30 Bhories of gold).
ACJM (Third Remand – 27th April 2017): Held that the mehr (Rs. 1 lac) was already paid. For the balance (Rs. 7 lacs cash and 30 Bhories gold), it was noted that Exhibit 8 (original marriage register entry) recorded the amount and gold being given "to the son-in-law," though the Marriage Registrar admitted to a discrepancy/error. The ACJM held the husband liable to return the Rs. 7 lacs and 30 Bhories of gold. Furniture was denied due to lack of entry.
High Court (Revisional Jurisdiction): Found merit in the husband's revision and set aside the ACJM's findings. The High Court's reasoning relied heavily on the statement of the bride's father in the prior Section 498A IPC proceedings, where he had categorically stated the amount and gold were given to the Respondent (husband).
Issue Before the Supreme Court (SC)
Whether goods/amounts (Rs. 7 lacs cash and 30 Bhories gold) given by a father to his daughter or the bridegroom at the time of marriage, which subsequently ended in divorce, can be returned to the daughter by application of the law, specifically Section 3(1)(d) of the 1986 Act.
SC Findings
The SC found difficulty in agreeing with the High Court's reasoning.
Evidentiary Weight: The High Court erred by prioritizing the father's statement in the acquitted 498A proceedings over the Kazi/Marriage Registrar's evidence. The acquittal in the 498A case diminished the evidentiary weight of the father's statement regarding the giving of the property. Conversely, the Kazi's statement regarding the discrepancy/overwriting in the register, and his production of the same, should have been accepted in its entirety.
Purposive Interpretation (The Goalpost): The High Court failed to apply the purposive construction of the 1986 Act. The object of the Act is to secure the dignity and financial protection of a divorced Muslim woman. The interpretation must be grounded in social justice adjudication and framed in the light of the lived experiences of women where patriarchal discrimination is prevalent.
Conclusion: The goods and amount, though recorded as given to the son-in-law, fall within the ambit of "properties given to her... at the time of marriage by her relatives" under Section 3(1)(d) of the 1986 Act, and must be returned to the divorced wife.
Application of Law
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by applying a purposive and socially just construction to Section 3(1)(d) of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
Statutory Provision: The Court emphasized Section 3(1)(d), which states a divorced woman is entitled to "all the properties given to her before or at the time of marriage or after her marriage by her relatives or friends or the husband or any relatives of the husband or his friends."
Harmonizing Interpretation: A narrow, literal interpretation of the entry in the marriage register (Exhibit 8) recording the gift as given "to the son-in-law" would defeat the purpose of the 1986 Act. The SC essentially held that properties brought from the parental home, irrespective of the technical recipient's name in a ceremonial document, are properties the woman is entitled to recover upon divorce, especially when the marriage registry entry itself is subject to a bona fide admission of discrepancy by the registrar.
Constitutional Context: By citing Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), the Court affirmed that the law must be construed to uphold the fundamental rights of women to equality, dignity, and autonomy, which includes financial protection post-divorce.
Consequence: The Judgment and Order of the High Court were set aside, and the Respondent was directed to remit the awarded cash (Rs. 7 lacs) and the value of the gold (30 Bhories) directly to the Appellant's bank account within six weeks, with a penalty of 9% interest per annum for non-compliance.
