uslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – Section 3(1)(d) – Scope
Section 3(1)(d) entitles a divorced Muslim woman to claim and recover all properties given to her before, at, or after marriage by her relatives, friends, husband, or husband’s relatives; the provision is remedial and must be purposively construed to secure dignity and financial protection of the divorced woman.
(Paras 7, 9)
Marriage Gifts – Dowry / Articles – Return after Divorce
Goods, money, or ornaments given by the bride’s father at the time of marriage, even if handed over to the bridegroom, are recoverable by the divorced wife under Section 3(1)(d) of the 1986 Act, unless there is clear proof that such properties were not meant for her benefit.
(Paras 3, 7–10)
Evidence – Marriage Register (Qabilnama) – Evidentiary Value
Where the Marriage Registrar admits an erroneous or overwritten entry in the marriage register and produces the original register in Court, his testimony cannot be discarded merely on suspicion, particularly when contrary oral evidence has already failed in criminal proceedings and attained finality.
(Paras 8, 9)
Criminal Proceedings – Acquittal – Effect on Subsequent Claims
Statements relied upon in proceedings under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which resulted in acquittal and attained finality, cannot be accorded overriding evidentiary value in subsequent proceedings under the 1986 Act.
(Para 8)
High Court – Article 227 – Limits of Supervisory Jurisdiction
Though the High Court’s power of superintendence under Article 227 extends to judicial orders, interference is impermissible where such exercise defeats the object of a beneficial legislation and reduces proceedings under the 1986 Act to a mere civil dispute.
(Paras 5.2, 9)
Statutory Interpretation – Beneficial / Social Justice Legislation
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 must be interpreted in the light of constitutional values of equality, dignity, and autonomy under Article 21, keeping in view lived realities of women, particularly in patriarchal and rural settings.
(Para 9)
Precedent – Constitution Bench
Daniel Latifi v. Union of India reaffirmed that Sections 3 and 4 of the 1986 Act are substantive, rights-conferring provisions with an overriding effect, enabling a divorced Muslim woman to seek return of mahr and properties through a Magistrate.
(Para 7; relying on Daniel Latifi v. Union of India)
ANALYSIS (Paragraph-wise)
Paras 2–4
The Court identifies the narrow legal issue: whether properties and valuables given at the time of marriage by the bride’s father—whether to the bride or to the bridegroom—can be claimed by the divorced woman under the 1986 Act.
Paras 4–6
A detailed procedural history reveals repeated remands and conflicting findings. Ultimately, the High Court exercised Article 227 jurisdiction to deny the claim, primarily relying on the father’s statement that the articles were given to the husband.
Para 7
The Supreme Court extracts and emphasises Section 3(1) of the 1986 Act, particularly clause (d), reiterating its overriding nature and its focus on return of properties to the divorced woman.
Para 8
The Court finds fault with the High Court’s evidentiary appreciation. The father’s statement relied upon by the High Court had already been tested and rejected in criminal proceedings ending in acquittal. In contrast, the Marriage Registrar’s testimony explaining the erroneous entry was corroborated by production of original records.
Para 9
This paragraph constitutes the normative core of the judgment. The Court criticises the High Court for adopting a narrow civil-law lens and ignoring the purposive, social-justice orientation of the 1986 Act. The judgment expressly links the Act to Article 21 values—dignity, equality, and autonomy of divorced Muslim women.
Para 10
The appeal is allowed; the High Court judgment is set aside; directions are issued for payment with interest in default, reinforcing the enforceability of Section 3 remedies.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Under Section 3(1)(d) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to recover money, gold, and other articles given at the time of marriage by her father or relatives, even if such properties were handed over to the husband, and courts must interpret the provision purposively to advance dignity, equality, and financial security of divorced women rather than treating the claim as a mere civil dispute.
No comments:
Post a Comment