© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Supreme Court said Tuesday that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to recover the cash and gold ornaments received by her husband from her father at the time of the wedding under The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
Setting aside the Calcutta High Court’s January 31, 2024, order, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N K Singh directed S K Salahuddin to pay the claimed amount of Rs 17.67 lakh to his former wife, Rousanara Begum.
While allowing the woman’s claim, the apex court said that the “scope and object” of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act is “concerned with securing the dignity and financial protection of a Muslim woman post her divorce, which aligns with the rights of women under Article 21 of the Constitution”.
“The construction of this Act, therefore, must keep at the forefront equality, dignity and autonomy and must be done in the light of lived experiences of women, where particularly in smaller towns and rural areas, inherent patriarchal discrimination is still the order of the day.”
From lower courts to Calcutta HC
The couple were married on August 28, 2005, and divorced on December 13, 2011. Thereafter, Begum approached the court under Section 3 of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, seeking the return of Rs. 17,67,980, comprising the dower amount, gold ornaments, and other goods.
After several rounds of litigation before the lower courts, the matter reached the Calcutta High Court, which ruled against Begum. The HC noted a contradiction between the statement of the qazi (the marriage registrar), and that of the woman’s father.
“The former stated in evidence that the entry recording the amount and gold being given to the husband was erroneously done, and it should have been that the said amount(s) were only given without specifying to whom. The father of the appellant, on the other hand, stated that he had given the amount(s) in question to the respondent,” the high court said.
“Since the father was directly responsible for giving the said amount(s), it would be prudent to accept his version of events,” the high court concluded.
‘HC missed purposive construction goalpost’
On appeal, the Supreme Court said in its order dated December 2, that “what apparently the High Court lost sight of is the end result of the proceedings in which the said statement of the father was given”.
“Those proceedings were concerned with Section 498A-IPC and Section(s) 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and despite such a direct statement by the father of the appellant, the learned Trial Court seized of the matter acquitted the respondent, a conclusion which appears to have attained finality,” said the bench.
“Then, it cannot be said, in our view, that the evidentiary value of that statement is either equal to or greater than the statement of the marriage registrar. The High Court records that the latter statement regarding writing and overwriting in the entry in the marriage register is proved by him having produced the same before the Court. When that is the case, we are at a loss to understand why his statement in its entirety should not be accepted. Mere allegation as to his conduct being suspicious on account of overwriting in the marriage register is not sufficient to discard his testimony,” it added.
“The High Court missed the purposive construction goalpost and instead proceeded to adjudicate the matter purely as a civil dispute. The Constitution of India prescribes an aspiration for all, ie, equality, which is, obviously, yet to be achieved. Courts, in doing their bit to this end, must ground their reasoning in social justice adjudication”.
