The Supreme Court has delivered a powerful verdict that directly challenges deep-rooted patriarchal traditions in Muslim marriages, particularly those still prevalent in smaller towns and rural areas.
The Ruling Under Muslim Personal Law
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N K Singh quashed a Calcutta High Court order that had allowed a man to retain gifts given by his father-in-law during the marriage. Applying the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the Supreme Court made it clear: all gifts given by parents, whether to their daughter or to the bridegroom at the time of marriage, must be returned to the Muslim woman if the marriage ends in divorce.
Grounding Justice In Social Reality
The court emphasized that judicial reasoning must be grounded in social justice when interpreting laws meant to protect women.
“The Constitution of India prescribes an aspiration for all equality, which is, obviously, yet to be achieved. Courts, in doing their bit to this end, must ground their reasoning in social justice adjudication,” the bench stated.
Addressing Patriarchal Discrimination In Muslim Marriages
The court didn’t hold back about the realities Muslim women face. “The construction of this Act 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 judgment read.
What Section 3 Of The 1986 Act Says
The bench explained that Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, grants a Muslim woman rights over all properties given to her before, during, or after marriage by her relatives, friends, husband, or any relatives of the husband or his friends.
“The section deals with mehr/dower and/or other properties given to a woman at the time of her marriage, clearing the way for the woman to set up a claim against her husband in the above situations, or claim back from her husband properties given, as the case may be,” the court clarified.
