Dowry Case | In the absence of specific allegations, mere naming of distant relatives cannot justify prosecution: MP High Court Non-Commencement of Activities Alone Not a Ground for Refusal: Calcutta High Court at Calcutta Affirms Trust Registration, Stating Granting Shifting Permissions is a Quasi-Judicial Act: Delhi High Court Quashes Disciplinary Charges Against MCA Official Jurisdiction Does Not Preclude Transfer to Competent Family Courts: Rules Kerala High Court Madras High Court Acquits Two, Reduces Sentence of Main Accused: Single Injury Does Not Prove Intent to Murder Financial Creditors Retain Right to Pursue Personal Guarantors Post-Resolution Plan: Punjab & Haryana High Court Proper Notice and Enquiry are the Bedrock of Just Administrative Actions: Rajasthan High Court Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Discharge Order in Madan Tamang Murder Case, Orders Trial for Bimal Gurung Review Cannot be Treated Like an Appeal in Disguise: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Tax Review Petition Delhi High Court Orders Interest Payment on Delayed Tax Refunds: ‘Refund Delays Cannot Be Justified by Legal Issues’” Freedom of Press Does Not Exempt Legal Consequences: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Journalists in Jail Sting Operation Highest Bidder Has No Vested Right”: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Rejection of SEZ Plot Allotment Indefeasible Right to Bail Arises When Investigation Exceeds Statutory Period: Punjab & Haryana HC Sets Aside Extension Orders in NDPS Case Higher Qualifications Can't Override Prescribed Standards, But Service Deserves Pension: Punjab & Haryana High Court A Mere Breach of Promise Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust Under Section 406 IPC: Rajasthan High Court Madras High Court Overturns Order Denying IDA Increments, Citing Unfair Settlement Exclusion No Premeditated Intention to Kill: Kerala High Court Reduces Murder Convictions in Football Clash Case Landlord Need Not Be Owner to Seek Eviction: Court Upholds Broad Definition of Landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Delhi High Court Sets Aside Status Quo on Property, Initiates Contempt Proceedings for False Pleadings and Suppression of Facts Calcutta High Court Rules Deceased Driver Qualifies as Third Party, Overrides Policy Limitations for Just Compensation A Litigant Who Pollutes the Stream of Justice Is Not Entitled to Any Relief: Rajasthan High Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case Due to Suppression of Evidence Punjab and Haryana High Court Awards Compensation in Illegal Termination Case, Affirms Forest Department as an 'Industry' Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Madras High Court Acquits Man in Double Murder Case Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Loan Repayment Dispute: Manifestly Attended with Mala Fide Intentions Systematic Instruction Essential for ‘Education’ Tax Exemption: Delhi High Court Intent to Deceive Constitutes Forgery: High Court of Calcutta Dismisses Quashing Petition in Fraudulent Property Inclusion Case

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.

Similar News