In the case of divorce of a Muslim woman, the Supreme Court has said that the husband will have to return all the gold and cash which the woman’s father had given her at the time of marriage. On Tuesday (December 2, 2025), the court said that the law made in 1986 to protect the rights of divorced Muslim women should keep equality, dignity and autonomy paramount and should pay attention to the experiences of women, because inherent patriarchal discrimination is still common, especially in small towns and rural areas.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotishwar Singh canceled the order of the Calcutta High Court. The woman had claimed Rs 7 lakh in cash and gold given to her ex-husband at the time of marriage, which was rejected by the High Court, after which the woman has approached the Supreme Court.
The petitioner woman says that she got married in the year 2005 and the husband and wife separated in 2009. Both of them got divorced in 2011. The woman appealed to take back the cash and gold given to her husband at the time of marriage, the total value of which she said was Rs 17.67 lakh. The woman had filed an appeal under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
The High Court refused to accept the woman’s claim on the grounds that there was a discrepancy between the statements of the petitioner’s father and the Qazi who conducted the marriage. The Qazi says the amount was entered in the marriage register without specifying the recipient, while the father says the amount was handed over to the groom.
The Supreme Court canceled the order of the Calcutta High Court, in which the verdict was given in favor of the husband and he was given relief from returning the goods. The bench said that there is a possibility of two interpretations in this case and it is a settled rule that this Court, in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution, does not interfere with the decision of the High Court merely on the ground that two different views are possible.
The Court held that this exception did not apply in this case, as the High Court failed to consider the principle of purposive interpretation and dealt with the case merely as a civil dispute.
The Court said, ‘The Constitution of India sets an aspiration i.e. equality for all, which is yet to be achieved in reality. The courts should contribute in this direction and base their reasoning on decisions inspired by social justice.
The Supreme Court said, ‘In context, the objective of the 1986 Act is to provide dignity and economic security to a Muslim woman after divorce, which is in line with her rights provided under Article 21 of the Constitution.’ The bench said, ‘Therefore, it is necessary to keep equality, dignity and autonomy paramount while interpreting this Act and it should be seen in the light of the real life experiences of women, because the inherent patriarchal discrimination is still widespread, especially in small towns and rural areas.’
The Supreme Court accepted the woman’s appeal and canceled the High Court order. The bench asked the woman’s lawyer to provide her bank account details and other related information to her ex-husband’s lawyer within three working days from the date of the judgment.
The court said, ‘The amount should be sent directly to the bank account of the appellant (wife). The respondent (former husband) is directed to file an affidavit of compliance in the registry of this court within six weeks. The said compliance certificate will be made part of the record. If necessary action is not taken in time, the respondent will have to repay the amount with nine percent annual interest.’