MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Demanding Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt in Civil Disputes Over Stridhan Is Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision today, the Supreme Court corrected a significant legal misstep by the Kerala High Court, affirming that the standard of proof in civil disputes, especially those involving Stridhan (woman’s marital property), is ‘preponderance of probabilities’ and not the criminal standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

The apex court highlighted the inappropriate application of the criminal standard of proof by the High Court in a civil dispute regarding Stridhan, reinforcing that civil disputes should be judged on the ‘preponderance of probabilities.’

The case revolved around Maya Gopinathan, who accused her husband, Anoop S.B., and his late brother of misappropriating her gold jewelry and a monetary gift. Although the Family Court ruled in her favor, the High Court reversed this partially, prompting the Supreme Court review.

Standard of Proof: The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erroneously demanded proof beyond reasonable doubt for a civil matter involving Stridhan. The Supreme Court reasserted the correct standard—preponderance of probabilities.

Entrustment and Misappropriation: The Supreme Court upheld the Family Court’s finding that Gopinathan entrusted her jewelry to her husband for safekeeping, which he misappropriated. The High Court’s dismissal of this finding was criticized for lacking a factual basis.

Evidence Evaluation: Criticizing the High Court’s speculative re-evaluation of evidence, the Supreme Court underscored the necessity of adhering to the factual conclusions drawn by the Family Court, particularly in the context of matrimonial trust and the dynamics of personal relationships.

Decision of the Judgment: Overturning the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court reinstated the Family Court’s judgment with modifications, awarding Gopinathan Rs. 25,00,000 to account for the escalation in costs over time. This decision underscored the application of Article 142 of the Constitution to meet the ends of justice and equity.

Date of Decision: April 24, 2024

Maya Gopinathan vs. Anoop S.B. & Anr.

Latest Legal News