Stridhan is the absolute property of a woman
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AnA8RNRWqS7Zre1aMANvk_SVlW0UgQ?e=bIVCsJ
Stridhan is the absolute property of a woman, and while the husband has no control over it, he can use it in times of distress. Nevertheless, he has a moral obligation to return it or its value to his wife.
Maya Gopinathan v Anoop S.B., Diary No.- 22430-2022
Supreme Court of India21. The facts are clear that the appellant did not lodge any complaint of
criminal breach of trust but by initiating civil proceedings, sought return
of money equivalent to her stridhan property which stood lost forever.
This Court in Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada7 [a decision
by a bench of three Honble Judges of this Court on a reference made
by a bench of two Honble Judges, who considered it necessary that a
fresh look at the view expressed in a previous decision of three Honble
7
(1997) 2 SCC 397
13
Judges in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar8 be had], after scrutiny of
several treatises and precedents had the occasion to observe in
paragraph 10 that the properties gifted to a woman before marriage, at
the time of marriage or at the time of bidding of farewell or thereafter
are her stridhan properties. It is her absolute property with all rights to
dispose at her own pleasure. The husband has no control over her
stridhan property. He may use it during the time of his distress but
nonetheless he has a moral obligation to restore the same or its value
to his wife. Therefore, stridhan property does not become a joint
property of the wife and the husband and the husband has no title or
independent dominion over the property as owner thereof. It was also
observed in paragraph 13 that to make out an offence under section
406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, what was required to be proved
was entrustment of stridhan property with dominion over such property
to the husband or to any member of his family as well as dishonest
misappropriation of or conversion to his own use the said property by
the husband or such other member of his family. Admittedly, we are
not concerned with any criminal offence and, therefore, proof on
balance of probabilities would be sufficient