Proving ‘Stridhana’: Reality Must Trump Rigidity

Even while coming out of prison, inmates are entitled to take back all their belongings deposited and inventoried at the time of incarceration. But in many matrimonial homes in which brides may be confined, why should it be a struggle to get back their belongings or ‘stri-dhana’ (as the term suggests, the wife’s personal articles) when they exit?

Aside of criminal cases filed under Section 316 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, where entrustment and dishonest appropriation and conversion can be proved, cases for return of ‘stridhana’ are intensely fought in Family Courts and higher echelons. The bone of contention is invariably over proof of belongings. ‘You brought nothing’ or ‘You didn’t bring this or that’ or ‘How many Karats was that ornament ’ punctuate common domestic arguments.

Wedding photographs with the bride usually decked up with jewellery are a good starting point. Bills, online or hard copies, for the purchase of gold or silver or consumer durables constitute obvious proof. Often, invoices are delivered by the business establishments along with the products to the destination address. In such cases, corresponding bank statements are other possible records.

Undeniably, in certain communities, marriages cannot take place unless a fixed minimum amount of gold, usually handed down from one generation to another, and other articles are brought in. Wouldn’t the principle of ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’ (The thing speaks for itself) apply in these instances? For ancestral jewellery passed on across generations, bills may just not be available.

A bride does not enter a matrimonial home with an evidence-gathering mindset. Neither can she be expected to carry a body camera, NYPD style! There are two brilliant judgments that address this point.

The Supreme Court in MG Vs ASB (2025) raised practical questions. “Is it reasonable to expect that a woman who is freshly married and is intending to live in the same house and under the same roof with her husband, to keep her belongings like jewellery etc under her own lock and key, thus showing a spirit of distrust to the husband right after the moment she gets married?” The apex court added that the “very concept of marriage rests on the inevitable mutual trust of the spouses, which conjugality necessarily involves.” The court further reasoned that such matrimonial matters are not a criminal trial where the “mode and manner of acquisition” and “chain of circumstances” need to be “conclusively proved without any missing link.”

There just cannot be rigid legal proof of ‘stridhana’. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in RR Vs KKG (2025) factored in this difficulty. It rightly held that “due to private and often informal nature of such transfers, it becomes merely impossible for women to produce documentary evidence proving ownership or misappropriations. In such situation the courts must rely on the principle of preponderance of probabilities to deliver justice.” The role of courts in recognising truth in its “real context”, the Bench nailed it succinctly.

“The gold given to a bride at the time of marriage is often kept by the husband or his family under the guise of safekeeping of family customs. The woman rarely gets a written record or receipt for such transfers and the woman's access to her own ornaments can be restricted. When disputes arise, especially in cases of domestic violence, dowry harassment or divorce, the woman may claim that her gold ornaments have been misused or never returned. However, since she seldom receives the list or acknowledgment of the items given to her, proving ownership becomes difficult.”

‘Stridhana’ is not a caution deposit. Or a donation to the marital home. In many cases, apart from the monetary security it offers, it is also of sentimental value symbolising sacrifices made by parents - especially when wedlock becomes a deadlock.

(The writer is an advocate practising at the Madras high court, legal columnist & author of 4 books. This column is only to spread legal awareness)