Published On: October 11th 2025
Authored By: Rupsha Mukherjee
SOA National Institute of Law
ABSTRACT
Stridhan is a woman’s specific property in classical Hindu law that includes the assets that a woman acquires for a lifetime, such as presents given to her before getting married, during, or even after marriage, as well as in every phase of her marital life. So, it literally means woman’s property. It has long had a prominent place in the discussion of women’s rights and property ownership in India. Although a woman’s autonomy over her stridhan was upheld in the traditional scriptures, judicial rulings have changed how this right is interpreted and safeguarded. Nowadays, stridhan is a contentious legal area since issues about its abuse, denial, or coerced control still make it to the courts.
Judicial tendencies in this ground showcase intricacy as well as constancy. Irrespective of a woman’s marital situation, courts have endlessly upheld that stridhan is her own asset and cannot be taken by her husband or in-laws or recognized as joint property. The idea that stealing stridhan constitutes a criminal breach of trust has been reinforced by significant rulings from the Supreme Court and other high courts[1]. However, practical barriers persist in enforcement. The ancient interpretation of stridhan must be reconciled with the contemporary framework of gender equity, inheritance rights, and matrimonial property. The Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961[2], in particular, are insufficient statutory provisions that lead to further issues. Although legal interpretation has filled in the gaps, subordinate courts and legal systems for enforcement continue to exhibit inconsistency.
In order to ensure a strong defence of women’s right to property in both maternal and societal circumstances, this article conducts a thorough analysis of stridhan as a legal concept, tracing its historical roots, examining significant judicial pronouncements, and assessing the new difficulties women face in protecting their rights.Although court systems have strongly recognized the rights of women over her stridhan, a closer examination of judicial trends reveals that new issues call for more precise legal protections to make sure that this right is not diminished to a meaningless assurance.
INTRODUCTION
With its profound origins in Hindu law, the idea of stridhan reflects the changing societal and judicial context as well as the development of a woman’s proprietorship rights. Stridhan, which literally translates to “a woman’s assets,” was formerly thought to be a woman’s own property, unaffected by her husband or in-laws. The Manu Smriti and the Smritis of Yajnavalkya are two examples of ancient texts that explicitly recognized presents provided by a woman prior to, during, or following marriage as her unique property[3]. This theoretical foundation resulted from the understanding that women should have authority over some goods, despite the fact that they were frequently restricted in other areas of life. This philosophy is embodied in the proverb “What pertains to a woman is hers alone,” which provides insight into the ancient recognition of female autonomy in disputes over property.
From the classical era of Hindu law until the colonial and post-colonial periods, the historical evolution of stridhan may be tracked. In the earliest writings, stridhan encompassed movable items like clothing, decorations, and presents from parents, relatives, or even complete strangers. Its scope gradually expanded, and subsequent interpretations acknowledged immovable property as falling under its purview. The initial spirit of autonomy was occasionally diluted throughout the colonial era due to new problems and interpretations brought about by the codification of Hindu law and the influence of English jurisprudence. However, in subsequent years, the Indian judiciary worked to reinforce women’s rights by enhancing the notion that stridhan is her sole property
Modern day stridhan has been significantly shaped by judicial rulings. The Supreme Court of India confirmed in its influential judgement in the Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar [4]case that stridhan is a woman’s exclusive property and that any theft by her husband or his family members is an unlawful breach of trust. The Court emphasized that a woman’s exclusive claim over her stridhan is not taken away by marriage or cohabitation, highlighting the idea that her ownership is unrestricted. This story serves as a shining example of stridhan independence from the marriage.
But as time passes, patriarchal customs, social upbringing, and legal barriers have frequently prevented women from recovering their legitimate property. As courts strike a balance between conventional values and modern issues, the notion of stridhan keeps changing. Its theoretical base reveals an enduring recognition of female ownership that has withstood centuries of change, and its history demonstrates the tenacity of women’s rights within Hindu law. Today’s jurisprudence surrounding stridhan represents not only property rights but also the larger fight for female equality in the legal system.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND STATUTORY RECOGNITION
Due to its recognition as a woman’s ultimate ownership that is separate from the marital estate, stridhan has continuously had a prominent place in Indian jurisprudence. The Hindu Succession Act[5], which defined the law pertaining to intestate distribution among Hindus and reaffirmed unequivocally that property given to a woman prior to, during, or following her marriage constitutes her exclusive asset, is the main source of its statutory foundation. The act strengthens her proprietary autonomy by giving her the unrestricted ability to let go of it like any other absolute owner would.
In a number of significant decisions, Indian courts have emphasized this acknowledgment. The Supreme Court made it clear in the Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada [6]case that stridhan is wholly the wife’s own property; it cannot be included in joint property with her husband. The Court determined that, in accordance with Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, a woman’s stridhan is a criminal breach of trust if it is taken by her husband or in-laws. When it came to holding the family members responsible for the improper detention of a woman’s belongings, this decision marked a major shift.
Despite the theoretical differences between dowry and stridhan, courts have been forced to make specific distinctions due to the abuse of women’s property under the disguise of dowry. A woman’s right to regain her stridhan regardless of separation or divorce was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in cases such as Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury[7]. By confirming that the retention of stridhan constituted a persistent wrong rather than a one-time offense, the ruling provided Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005[8] with additional force.
For instance, discussions in The Hindu highlights according to section 405 of the Indian penal code, for illustration, the Chhattisgarh High Court has repeated that a married woman maintains wholly access of her stridhan[9]. They are bound to return her back without holding it in their name. This demonstrates that even while the legal system is robust, there is still a disconnect between what the law says and what women really go through. By bolstering civil and criminal remedies, the judiciary has attempted to close that gap; however, proactive enforcement and societal reform remain crucial. Statutory provisions frequently lose their effectiveness due to peer pressure, administrative failures, and ignorance.
Thus, while the current legal structure offers a solid basis, there is a disconnect between the law and actual life as it is applied in practice. By extending the range of punishments available under civil as well as criminal law, the judiciary has made an effort to close this gap. This changing framework shows that even while stridhan is clearly recognized by law, implementation issues still necessitate social change and legal attention.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND EVOLVING TRENDS
Judicial judgments have greatly influenced the jurisprudence concerning stridhan and are still redefining its scope. Regardless of a female’s marital status, Indian courts have frequently affirmed that stridhan is her own property and cannot be regarded as joint family property. According to Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court ruled unequivocally in the seminal case of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar[10] that stridhan is a woman’s sole property and that refusing to return it constitutes a criminal breach of trust. This recognition improved women’s legal status by recognizing such deprivation as a significant criminal offense rather than just a household conflict. On the other hand, changing patterns over time show a conflicting judiciary. Trial courts frequently show hesitancy, claiming a lack of evidence or family influences, whereas higher courts have remained steadfast in their support of women’s rights. In the Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury case[11], the Supreme Court reconfirmed that stridhan claims are not controlled by the statute of limitations, acknowledging the sociocultural fact that women are often silenced for ages before they can raise their voice and take the step to go to the court. Many women who had previously been denied justice on procedural grounds found hope in this ruling.
According to recent incidents, the judiciary is shifting toward a more gender-sensitive interpretation. Courts are becoming more aware of the emotional and monetary value of stridhan, especially in cases of domestic abuse, according to media publications like those in The Hindu and Times of India[12]. The jurisdiction has also been expanded by the Protecting the Rights of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which permits women to pursue civil remedies in addition to criminal ones in order to regain their stridhan.
According to the tendency, stridhan is gradually being treated as an instrument for empowering women rather than only being acknowledged as property. However, there are still issues with resolving ingrained prejudices in society and maintaining rigorous enforcement. Although judicial rulings have established a strong basis, changing circumstances necessitate ongoing attention to make sure that women’s legitimate possession of stridhan is not diminished to a meaningless pledge.
PRACTICAL CHALLENGES IN ENFORCEMENT AND RECOVERY
Enforcing and recovering stridhan is frequently more difficult than it seems. Although it is evident that law clarifies that women own the actual ownership of stridhan, the actual situation on the ground paints a different picture. When it involves regaining what is lawfully theirs, women usually have an uphill struggle. Although courts have often emphasized that stridhan is a woman’s sole property, societal and procedural barriers in India continue to be obstacles[13].
One recurring challenge is the deep-rooted social conditioning that discourages women from asserting their rights. In many families, the demand for the return of stridhan is seen as an act of rebellion against marital harmony. This stigma often silences women, forcing them to suffer in silence rather than approach the courts. The Hindu reported in 2023 about a case in Uttar Pradesh where a woman had to wait nearly ten years for the recovery of her jewellery because the in-laws treated her demand as an attack on family honour. This highlights how social attitudes continue to cast a long shadow over legal entitlements.
Accountability is also an unpleasant and tedious procedure because of the criminal justice system’s procedural delays. The stridhan can be recovered by taking the regulations of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961; however, a significant barrier is police resistance to filing formal complaints. It is reiterated by The supreme court that stridhan is an ongoing right that even after divorce it can be proclaimed as happened in the Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury case[14]. However, police officers frequently brush off accusations as “domestic issues” that don’t warrant an in-depth inquiry, even in spite of such official pronouncements.
This complexity is also reflected in judgments made at the state level. In the Sushil Kumar v. State of West Bengal case[15], the Calcutta High Court held that the in- laws or her partner cannot deny to return her assets back and if it happens then she can take actions and they will face legal consequences; however, the application of these rulings is still inconsistent. Similar to this, the Rajasthan High Court has noted in recent years that women must provide a disproportionate quantity of proof simply to establish who owns presents they got during marriage, which needlessly lengthens court cases.
The fact that several women are economically dependent only adds to these problems. In 2022, the Times of India covered several examples in Delhi where women, despite having constitutional rights, chose not to pursue recovery actions due to a lack of funds for protracted court proceedings. This illustrates a vicious loop in which they are kept in a state of reliance after being refused access to the same thing that might have given them control.
A harsh reality is highlighted by each of these issues: even if ownership is nine-tenths of the law, the legitimate owner of stridhan frequently gets nothing. Although there is legal sanction in black and white, the fight for enforcement is a lengthy and exhausting one that is fraught with administrative indifference, societal discrimination, and monetary hardship. On paper, the legislation is progressive, but its essence will vanish if it is not promptly recovered. To genuinely function as a tool for women’s freedom and dignity, stridhan must have more structural responsibility as well as increased understanding and empathy at the grassroots level.
CONCLUSION
Stridhan’s path through the Indian legal system is a reflection of both advancements and enduring challenges. Despite the legal framework of marriage, courts have consistently upheld that stridhan is a woman’s sole possession. However, practical obstacles, including cultural adaptation, difficulties proving their case, and drawn-out processes, sometimes keep women from benefiting from this legal legitimacy. It’s time for the law to stop being a paper tiger and start acting as a shield that actually defends the rights of women.
Raising consciousness about women’s rights and preventing them from losing their voice by pressure or custom is essential to changing the trend. Instead of being ignored, judicial rulings ought to be enforced vigorously. A stitch in time saves nine, and decades of anguish and battle can be avoided by enforcing women’s property rights immediately. Justice will become far more than just a pipe dream if legal aid is strengthened, proceedings are expedited, and police enforcement is made more aware of the issue.
Everybody across society will benefit if stridhan is given the respect it merits. Enabling a woman to recover and manage her legitimate ownership is essential to social justice and equal treatment, and it goes beyond legal validity.
REFERENCES
[1] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 405.
[2]Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.
[3] Satyajeet A Desai, Mulla: Principles of Hindu Law (22nd edn, LexisNexis 2022).
[4] Pratibha Rani v Suraj Kumar (1985) 2 SCC 370 (SC).
[5] Hindu Succession Act 1956.
[6] Rashmi Kumar v Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997) 2 SCC 397 (SC).
[7] Krishna Bhattacharjee v Sarathi Choudhury (2016) 2 SCC 705 (SC).
[8] Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, s 12.
[9] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/raipur/married-woman-has-absolute-right-over-her-stridhan-rules-cg-hc/articleshow/120942705.cms.
[10] Ibid
[11] Ibid
[12] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/woman-sole-streedhan-owner-dad-cant-demand-its-return-sc/articleshow/112908199.cms
[13] https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/06/03/stridhan-recovery-must-be-under-hindu-marriage-act-allahabad-hc/
[14] Krishna Bhattacharjee (n 15).
[15] Sushil Kumar Gupta v State of West Bengal, C-R-R No 2795 of 2017 (Calcutta High Court, 18 August 2022).
