Kerala High Court rules gold gifted to bride is her exclusive property
text_fields
The Kerala High Court has ruled that gold ornaments and cash given to a bride at the time of her wedding must be treated as her exclusive property or Streedhan, reaffirming the legal entitlement of women over such assets even when documentary proof may be lacking.
The judgment was passed by a division bench comprising Justices Devan Ramachandran and MB Snehalatha, which allowed a petition filed by a woman from Kalamassery in Ernakulam, who had challenged a family court order denying her the return of her wedding gifts and ornaments during divorce proceedings.
The court noted that wedding gifts are often privately transferred without formal documentation, and that insisting on rigid legal proof in such cases would be impractical and unjust, especially when disputes arise after marital breakdown.
While the petitioner had claimed she received 63 sovereigns of gold and a two-sovereign chain from her parents at the time of her wedding in 2010, along with an additional six sovereigns from relatives, she alleged that most of the ornaments were taken to her in-laws’ room under the pretext of safekeeping, except for a few pieces she wore regularly.
The woman contended that the jewellery was purchased using funds from her parents’ fixed deposit, which she substantiated with documentary evidence, though she could not prove the receipt of the six sovereigns allegedly gifted by her relatives, nor the ownership of certain household items she also sought to reclaim.
After examining the case, the court directed her husband to return 59.5 sovereigns of gold or its present market value, while rejecting the remaining claims due to lack of evidence.
Observing the broader pattern of misappropriation of women’s possessions in marital homes, the court highlighted that in many families, jewellery given to the bride is retained by the husband or in-laws under the guise of tradition or safekeeping, and that women often lack any receipt or written acknowledgement of such assets.
The court emphasised that in cases involving domestic violence, dowry harassment or divorce, women’s inability to prove ownership must be seen as a structural issue, and courts must rely on the principle of preponderance of probabilities rather than criminal-level legal standards to ensure justice is delivered.
