Stridhan Is Her Absolute Right—Mutual Divorce Doesn’t Erase That": Supreme Court Orders ₹7 Lakh Payment or Return of Wife’s Property

In a significant judgment Supreme Court of India not only dissolved a marriage through mutual consent but emphatically underscored that a woman’s claim to her streedhan survives even post-divorce. While quashing the ongoing criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC as a measure to reduce acrimony, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner-wife to seek recovery of streedhan or ₹7,00,000 from the husband, declaring that:

“Dissolution of marriage by mutual consent does not extinguish a wife’s right to recover her streedhan.”

This dual ruling—balancing closure of criminal proceedings with safeguarding of civil property rights—reinforces the inviolability of a woman’s entitlement to her streedhan under Hindu law.

Payel Aich had approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer of a divorce petition filed by her husband Arnob Mitra in Jamshedpur to Alipore, West Bengal. While mediation between the parties failed, the husband requested the Court to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution for dissolution of the marriage. The wife did not oppose the divorce itself but insisted upon the return of her streedhan and resisted the quashing of criminal charges filed under Section 498A IPC.

Faced with a deadlock between matrimonial closure and unsettled claims, the Supreme Court had to strike a delicate balance between justice, finality, and fairness.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, heading the Bench, exercised the Court’s wide-ranging powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent and at the same time preserve the wife’s rights. The Bench observed:

“The petitioner is insisting on the return of her streedhan articles or, in the alternative, for a direction to be issued to the respondent to pay a sum of ₹7,00,000.”

While issuing this directive, the Court clarified:

“The direction is being issued not on the basis that the respondent has withheld the streedhan… which fact the latter has to prove, but to avoid further litigation between the parties.”

Thus, the Court neither accepted nor rejected the factual claim but granted the petitioner the liberty to pursue the matter legally. In a significant clarification, it allowed the wife to retain all legal remedies under civil law:

“We reserve liberty to the petitioner to seek the aforesaid reliefs in accordance with law.”

This reaffirmed the principle that streedhan is the woman’s absolute property and any claim to it survives even after consensual dissolution of the marital bond.

Criminal Proceedings Quashed—“No Purpose in Prosecution”:

In contrast, the Court took a pragmatic stance on the continuation of criminal proceedings. Noting that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, the Bench opined:

“We see no purpose in the petitioner seeking to prosecute her criminal complaints.”

Accordingly, all proceedings under Section 498A IPC and associated FIRs were quashed by the Court.

Further, the Court set aside all pending suits in Jamshedpur and Alipore, directed the Registry to draw up a decree for divorce, and specified a compliance window:

“We grant a period of three months from the date of this order to either return the streedhan articles or pay ₹7,00,000 to the petitioner.”

This procedural window allows the husband to settle the matter amicably and pre-empt additional litigation.

This decision is a measured and humane application of judicial discretion. The Supreme Court, while prioritizing the need for closure in a long-standing matrimonial dispute, did not allow the mutual consent decree to subsume a wife’s rightful entitlement to her property. Streedhan, as the Court reiterates, is not subject to compromise or consensual waiver. In doing so, the judgment sets an authoritative precedent that mutual consent divorce cannot dilute a woman’s proprietary rights, even if criminal prosecution is waived in the interest of resolution.

Date of Decision: May 16, 2025