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 / Muslim personal law |
| Questions of Law | Whether “all the properties given… at the time of marriage” under Section 3(d) must be returned to a divorced Muslim woman, regardless of entries recording gifts to the husband |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that Section 3(d) of the 1986 Act, read with its non-obstante clause and in light of the protective purpose discussed in Daniel Latifi, entitles a divorced Muslim woman to reclaim gifts and properties given at marriage. A registrar’s proved evidence of an entry and overwriting in the marriage register must be accepted over a contradictory statement made in separate 498-A/ Dowry Prohibition Act proceedings that attained finality. The Act must be construed purposively to secure dignity and financial protection under Article 21. |
| 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 |
The parties married in August 2005 and divorced in December 2011. The wife claimed dower, dowry and gifts worth Rs 17.67 lakhs under Section 3 of the 1986 Act. Multiple orders awarded varying sums and gold ornaments. The High Court set aside the trial court’s award, relying on a contradiction between two marriage-certificate entries and the father’s statement, and dismissed the wife’s claim. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Overrules | The judgment of the High Court at Calcutta in CRR No. 489 of 2019 and CRAN 9 of 2023 |
| Follows | Daniel Latifi v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Supreme Court confirms that Section 3(d) of the 1986 Act covers all properties and gifts given at marriage, even if entries in the marriage register record them as given to the husband.
- A proved overwriting and entry by the marriage registrar carries decisive evidentiary weight over a contradictory statement made in prior 498-A proceedings.
- The judgment reinforces a purposive, rights-based construction of the 1986 Act to secure dignity and financial protection for divorced Muslim women.
- High Court orders that treat such claims as purely civil disputes and disregard the Act’s protective object can be set aside.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Scope of Section 3(d)
- Noting the non-obstante clause and protective purpose in Daniel Latifi, the Court reads “all the properties given… at the time of marriage” purposively to include gifts even if entry records differ.
-
Evidentiary Analysis
- The marriage registrar’s testimony about an overwriting in Exhibit 8 was proved in court; the father’s contradictory statement in 498-A proceedings had already been evaluated in an acquittal that attained finality.
-
High Court’s Error
- By prioritising the father’s untested contradiction over the registrar’s proved entry, the Calcutta High Court lost sight of the statutory purpose and applied a civil-law approach.
-
Constitutional and Jurisdictional Principles
- Under Article 136, this Court intervened to uphold social‐justice objectives protected by Article 21, ensuring equality and autonomy for divorced Muslim women.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Divorced Wife)
- Section 3(d) entitles her to recover all gifts and dower given at marriage.
- The marriage registrar’s proved entry (Exhibit 8) should be accepted over her father’s contradictory statement.
- The protective, purposive object of the 1986 Act demands full restitution of marriage‐time gifts.
Respondent (Former Husband)
- Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8 contradict; gifts were recorded as given to him, not to his wife.
- The father’s statement in 498-A/Dowry Prohibition Act proceedings clearly stated that the amounts and gold were given to the respondent.
- The High Court correctly set aside the trial court’s civil-law award.
Factual Background
Between 2005 and 2011 the parties married, separated and divorced. The wife claimed Rs 17.67 lakhs as dower, dowry and 30 bhories of gold plus household items under Section 3 of the 1986 Act. Trial courts granted varying awards; the Calcutta High Court, on contradiction between two marriage-certificate entries and the father’s testimony, set aside the award. The Supreme Court granted leave to challenge that decision.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 3(1)(c) & (d), 1986 Act: guarantees mahr/dower and “all the properties given… at the time of marriage.”
- Non-obstante clause: overrides other laws to secure maintenance and property restitution.
- The Court applies a purposive reading aligned with dignity and equality under Article 21, as outlined in Daniel Latifi.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms the statutory scope as laid down in Daniel Latifi v. Union of India