PRATIBHA RANI Vs. SURAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sometimes the law which is meant to impart justic and fair play to the citizens or people of the country is so torn and twisted by a morbid interpretative process that instead of giving haven to the disappointed and dejected litigants it negatives their well established rights in law. The present case reveals the sad story of a helpless married woman who, having been turned out by her husband without returning her ornaments, money and clothes despite repeated demands, and dishonestly misappropriating the same, seems to have got some relief by the Court of the first instance but to her utter dismay and disappointment when she moved the High Court she was forced like a dumb-driven cattle to seek the dilatory remedy of a civil suit such was the strange and harsh approach of the High Court, with due respect, which seems to have shed all the norms of justice and fair play. Even so, the High Court is not much to be blamed because in the process of following precedents or decisions of doubtful validity of some courts, it tried to follow suit. It may be stated that even the old classic Hindu law jurists and celebrated sages conceded certain substantial rights to the women, one of which was what is called Saudyika or stridban, with which we are concerned here.

(2.) This now brings us to a brief discussions of the the nature, character and concomitants of stridhan. In the instant case, we are mainly concerned with that part of stridhan which is the absolute property of a married woman during coverture. Sir Gooroodas Banerjee in 'Hindu Law of Marriage and Stridhana' while describing the nature of stridhan quoted Katyayana thus :

(3.) At another place while referring to the nature of a husband's rights over stridhan during coverture, the author referring to Manu says thus :