Woman entitled for 'stridhan' after separation: SC

A woman who has been judicially separated from her husband can still invoke Domestic Violence law to get back her “stridhan” as it is her exclusive property, the Supreme Court has held.

The court explained that the distinction between divorce and judicial separation to bring home the point that a woman living separately from husband after a decree could be described as aggrieved person till the marriage was not annulled. “In judicial separation, mutual rights and obligations arising out of a marriage are suspended. The decree, however, does not sever or dissolve the marriage. It affords an opportunity for reconciliation and adjustment,” the bench said.

The court allowed a woman’s appeal against finding of the Tripura High Court, which had confirmed a magisterial court’s order rejecting her application for return of “stridhan”. Both the HC as well as the trial court had declined to entertain her plea, holding that the petitioner could not be  termed an “aggrieved person” under the “Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 to seek any relief as she was judicially separated from husband.

“It is quite clear that there is a distinction between a decree for divorce and decree of judicial separation; in the former, there is a severance of status and the parties do not remain as husband and wife, whereas in the later, the relationship between husband and wife continues and the legal relationship continues as it has not been snapped,” the bench said.

The apex court held that as long as the status of the aggrieved person remains and ‘stridhan’ remains in the custody of the husband, the wife can always put forth her claim under the Domestic Violence Act.

Citing the law, the court said “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent at any point of time and lived together in a shared household and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.

The apex court also directed the courts below to scrutinise facts of a case from all angles while keeping in mind that helpless and hapless “aggrieved person” under the 2005 Act approaches the court under the compelling circumstances. The woman’s plea was directed to magisterial court for fresh adjudication on merit.