The Kerala High Court has emphasized that in matrimonial disputes, particularly those involving claims of misappropriation of stridhan (a woman’s personal property), it is unreasonable to expect documentary evidence to prove ownership or entrustment. The court noted that such evidence is often unavailable due to the nature of familial transactions and societal practices. Instead, courts should assess claims based on the preponderance of probabilities, considering the surrounding circumstances and the credibility of oral testimonies.

This approach aligns with the Supreme Court’s stance that stridhan is the wife’s absolute property, and the husband has no independent dominion over it. The Court has reiterated that the husband may use the stridhan in times of distress but must restore it or its equivalent value to the wife. In cases where misappropriation is alleged, the standard of proof should be based on probabilities rather than the stringent requirements of criminal law.

In a notable case, the Supreme Court awarded ₹25 lakh to a woman whose husband had misappropriated her 89 sovereigns of gold, emphasizing that the High Court had erred in requiring documentary evidence and in doubting the woman’s bona fide intentions. ​

These rulings underscore the judiciary’s recognition of the complexities in proving ownership and misappropriation of stridhan, advocating for a more practical and equitable approach in such cases.

Sources