What is “Stridhana Property”?

 Image Sources: http://gstv.in/

Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has impose restriction over the women’s equal right towards the ancestral property. However, most of the Indian women doesn’t know about her vested right what she has present which was acquired from her maternal and paternal properties and what she obtained during the course of marriage. In such being, she must know about Stridhana property.

The Definition of Stridhana Property has been explained by the Hon’bel Supreme Court in L. GOWRAMMA (D) BY LR. VS SUNANDA (D) BY LRS. & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS.CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 174-175 OF 2016

 (1) “Stridhana” means property of every description belonging to a Hindu female, other than property in which she has, by law or under the terms of an instrument, only a limited estate.

(2) “Stridhana” includes :-(g) property taken by inheritance by a female from another female and property taken by inheritance by a female from her husband or son, or from a male relative connected by blood except when there is a daughter or daughter’s son of the propositus alive at the time the property is so inherited.

(3) All gifts and payments other than or in addition to, or in excess of, the customary presents of vessels, apparel and other articles of personal use made to a bride or bridegroom in connection with their marriage or to their parents or guardians or other person on their behalf, by the bridegroom, bride or their relatives or friends, shall be the stridhana of the bride.”

In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Another. In the said case,( (1985) 2 SCC 370 ) the majority referred to the stridhan as described in “Hindu Law” by N.R. Raghavachariar and Maine’s “Treatise on Hindu Law”. The Court after analyzing the classical texts opined that:- ”It is, therefore, manifest that the position of stridhan of a Hindu married woman’s property during coverture is absolutely clear and unambiguous; she is the absolute owner of such property and can deal with it in any manner she likes — she may spend the whole of it or give it away at her own pleasure by gift or will without any reference to her husband. Ordinarily, the husband has no right or interest in it with the sole exception that in times of extreme distress, as in famine, illness or the like, the husband can utilise it but he is morally bound to restore it or its value when he is able to do so. It may be further noted that this right is purely personal to the husband and the property so received by him in marriage cannot be proceeded against even in execution of a decree for debt.”  In the said case, the Court ruled: - “... a pure and simple entrustment of stridhan without creating any rights in the husband excepting putting the articles in his possession does not entitle him to use the same to the detriment of his wife without her consent. The husband has no justification for not returning the said articles as and when demanded by the wife nor can he burden her with losses of business by using the said property which was never intended by her while entrusting possession of stridhan. On the allegations in the complaint, the husband is no more and no less than a pure and simple custodian   acting on behalf of his wife and if he diverts the entrusted property elsewhere or for different purposes he takes a clear risk of prosecution under Section 406 of the IPC. On a parity of reasoning, it is manifest that the husband, being only a custodian of the stridhan of his wife, cannot be said to be in joint possession thereof and thus acquire a joint interest in the property.”