Return of Dower and Marriage Gifts After Divorce: Supreme Court Upholds Muslim Woman’s Right Under Section 3 of the 1986 Act

Case Name: Rousanara Begum v. S.K. Salahuddin @ S.K. Salauddin & Anr.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1375

Date of Judgment/Order  02 December 2025

Bench: Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Held: The Supreme Court held that dower and marriage-related properties given at the time of marriage are liable to be returned to a divorced Muslim woman under Section 3(1)(d) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, and that such entitlement cannot be denied on speculative or inconsistent evidentiary reasoning.

Summary: The appellant and the first respondent were married in 2005 and separated in 2009, with the marriage ending in divorce in 2011. The appellant initiated proceedings under Section 3 of the 1986 Act seeking return of dower, gold ornaments, and amounts allegedly given at the time of marriage by her father. The Magistrate allowed the claim in part, which was affirmed by the Sessions Court after multiple rounds of remand.

The High Court, however, set aside these orders by relying primarily on a statement made by the appellant’s father in separate criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC, holding that the amounts and gold were given to the husband rather than to the appellant. The Supreme Court found this reasoning flawed. It held that the evidentiary value of statements made in concluded criminal proceedings could not override the contemporaneous entries in the marriage register and the testimony of the marriage registrar, especially when the criminal case had resulted in acquittal.

The Court emphasised that the High Court failed to adopt a purposive and socially sensitive interpretation of the 1986 Act, which is a beneficial legislation aimed at securing dignity and financial protection for divorced Muslim women. The Court underscored that adjudication under personal law statutes must be informed by constitutional values of equality, autonomy, and social justice, particularly in light of lived realities of women.

Decision: The appeals were allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court and restored the entitlement of the appellant to the amounts and gold claimed under Section 3 of the 1986 Act. The respondent was directed to remit the amount directly to the appellant’s bank account and file an affidavit of compliance within six weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum would be payable.