‘Lived Realities Matter’: SC Restores Gold and Cash Wrongly Denied to Muslim Woman After Divorce by Calcutta High Court

In a significant judgment reinforcing the financial rights of divorced Muslim women, the Supreme Court on December 2, 2025, set aside a Calcutta High Court order that denied a woman the return of money and gold given at the time of her marriage.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh held that the High Court had erred by treating the matter like a civil dispute rather than recognising the broader purpose of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

Court said that the scope and object of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, is to secure the dignity and financial protection of a Muslim woman post her divorce, which aligns with the rights of women under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

"The construction of this Act, therefore, must keep at the forefront equality, dignity and autonomy and must be done in the light of lived experiences of women where particularly in smaller towns and rural areas, inherent patriarchal discrimination is still the order of the day," the bench said.

Court restored Rousanara Begum’s entitlement to the sum of articles given to her in marriage after the divorce, under Section 3 of the 1986 Act. Court directed the former husband to transfer the amount directly to the woman’s bank account within the stipulated period, failing which interest at nine per cent per annum would apply.

A dispute arose between Rousanara Begum and her former husband S.K. Salahuddin, who were married in 2005 and separated in 2009. She pursued maintenance proceedings and later divorce, which was finalised in 2011. After the divorce, Rousanara invoked Section 3 of the 1986 Act seeking Rs 17.67 lakh, comprising mehr, dowry amount, 30 bhori of gold ornaments, and other household articles that she said were given by her father at the time of marriage.

The trial court, after a detailed examination of the marriage register entries and the evidence of the marriage registrar (Kazi), awarded her Rs 8 lakh along with 30 bhori of gold. A subsequent remand and reconsideration led to the same conclusion, and the Sessions Court later upheld the decision.

However, the Calcutta High Court intervened in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, siding with the husband. The High Court relied heavily on a statement made by the woman’s father in earlier proceedings under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, where he had stated that the money and gold were given to the bridegroom. Taking that statement as decisive, the High Court rejected the marriage registrar’s explanation that the entries in the register were mistakenly worded and should not be construed as having been gifts exclusively to the groom.

The Supreme Court found the High Court’s approach fundamentally flawed. It observed that the father’s statement, made in separate criminal proceedings that had ended in the husband’s acquittal, could not be treated as carrying greater evidentiary value than the direct testimony of the marriage registrar, whose entries were formally produced before the court.

"Then, it cannot be said, in our view, that the evidentiary value of that statement is either equal to or greater than the statement of the marriage registrar. The High Court records that the latter statement regarding writing and overwriting in the entry in the marriage register is proved by him having produced the same before the court. When that is the case, we are at a loss to understand why his statement in entirety should not be accepted,'' the bench said.

Court noted that the High Court appeared to have “missed the purposive construction goalpost,” overlooking the very object of the 1986 Act which is to ensure financial security for divorced Muslim women.

The bench underscored that courts interpreting the Act must remain conscious of the lived realities of women, particularly in smaller towns and rural areas, where patriarchal structures often restrict their financial independence.

In this context, court reiterated that the Act entitles a divorced Muslim woman to reclaim all properties given to her at the time of marriage, whether those items were handed to the groom or not.

Allowing the appeal, court restored the woman’s claim and directed prompt compliance from the husband, including the filing of an affidavit confirming payment.

Case Title: Rousanara Begum Vs S K Salahuddin @ S K Salauddin & Anr

Judgment Date: December 2, 2025

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh