Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-005164-005165 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 60854/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH |
| Precedent Value | Binding Authority |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Family Law / Statutory Interpretation |
| Questions of Law | Whether goods given to a daughter at marriage by her relatives—but recorded as given to the groom—can be recovered by her under Section 3(d) |
| Ratio Decidendi (3–8 sentences) |
The Court held that Section 3(d) entitles a divorced Muslim woman to recover all properties given to her before, at, or after marriage, regardless of registry entries naming the husband as recipient. It gave primacy to the marriage registrar’s testimony over registry discrepancies and rejected reliance on a condemned statement made in unrelated Section 498-A/ Dowry Prohibition Act proceedings. A purposive construction—to secure dignity, equality and financial protection under Article 21—mandates restitution of gifts to the wife. High Court’s treatment of registry overwriting as determinative was set aside. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Daniel Latifi v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Marriage in 2005; wife left matrimonial home in 2009; divorce in 2011; wife claimed Rs 17.67 lakhs under Section 3 of the 1986 Act; lower tribunals granted part relief; High Court reversed; appeal to Supreme Court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and tribunals |
| Overrules | Calcutta High Court’s registry-entry-based denial of restitution under Section 3(d) |
| Follows | Daniel Latifi v. Union of India (2001 7 SCC 740) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Section 3(d) of the 1986 Act entitles a divorced Muslim woman to reclaim gifts given at marriage—even if entries in the marriage register record them as given to the husband.
- Evidentiary weight lies with the marriage registrar’s unchallenged testimony over registry overwriting or contradictory statements made in separate criminal proceedings.
- Purposeful, rights-based construction anchored in Article 21 (dignity and autonomy) overrides strict civil-registry formalism.
- Supreme Court’s decision is binding on all subordinate courts; lawyers can rely on it to counter registry-entry arguments in restitution petitions.
- High Courts cannot deploy Article 227 to convert Section 3(d) restitution claims into pure civil disputes without regard to statutory purpose.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 3(1)(d) of the 1986 Act grants a divorced Muslim woman the right to “all the properties given to her before or at the time of marriage or after her marriage.”
- Daniel Latifi (2001 7 SCC 740) confirmed the non-obstante nature and purposive scope of Section 3.
- Marriage registrar’s evidence proved the gift and overwriting error; registry discrepancies admitted by the registrar do not defeat statutory right.
- Father’s statement in Section 498-A/Dowry Prohibition Act proceedings lost evidentiary value upon respondent’s acquittal.
- High Court mischaracterised the claim as a civil dispute and overemphasised registry form over statutory purpose—reversed under Article 136.
- Construction guided by constitutional values of equality, dignity, and autonomy for Muslim women under Article 21.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Divorced Wife)
- Section 3(d) entitles her to recovery of all properties given at marriage irrespective of registry entries.
- Registrar’s testimony confirms gift; registry overwriting was erroneous.
Respondent (Ex-Husband)
- Registry entry (Exhibit 8) recorded gifts in his favour; no entitlement under Section 3(d).
- Father’s admission in Section 498-A proceedings supports registry-entry interpretation.
Factual Background
Rousanara Begum married in August 2005 and left the home in May 2009. After divorce in December 2011, she invoked Section 3 of the 1986 Act seeking Rs 17.67 lakhs (dower, dowry, gold ornaments, household items). Lower courts granted partial relief; the Calcutta High Court, on registry-entry discrepancy and father’s statement, set aside the award. Appeals reached the Supreme Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 3(1)(c) and (d) of the 1986 Act override other laws to secure “mahr or dower” and “all the properties given … by relatives or friends or the husband.”
- Constitution Bench in Daniel Latifi interpreted Sections 3 and 4 purposively, ensuring divorced Muslim women receive maintenance and returns of marital gifts.
- Present judgment applies the non-obstante clause and purposive approach, reading Section 3(d) expansively to include all matrimonial gifts regardless of registry notation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms Daniel Latifi and the purposive scope of Section 3(d)