In a significant verdict reinforcing women's rights, the Kerala High Court has ruled that gold and cash gifted to a woman during her marriage must be considered her personal property, or ‘Streedhan’. A division bench consisting of Justices Devan Ramachandran and MB Snehalatha passed the judgment while hearing an appeal filed by a woman from Kalamassery in Ernakulam, who had contested a family court's refusal to direct the return of her wedding gifts and ornaments following her divorce.

The bench acknowledged the widespread issue of husbands and in-laws retaining or misusing such valuables under the guise of family tradition or safety. The judges emphasized that many such transfers occur informally, making it extremely difficult for women to provide written evidence when disputes arise.

"In such circumstances," the bench said, "courts must adopt the standard of preponderance of probabilities rather than insist on rigid proof. Expecting formal documentation for these gifts, especially in domestic and private settings, is impractical."

According to the petitioner, her family had gifted her 63 sovereigns of gold and a two-sovereign chain when she married in 2010. She also claimed another six sovereigns were gifted by relatives. However, apart from the mangalsutra, a bangle, and two rings she wore daily, she alleged the rest of the gold was taken to her in-laws' room for 'safekeeping.' The situation worsened after her husband reportedly demanded an additional ₹5 lakh.

The woman supported her case with documents showing that her parents had purchased the gold using a fixed deposit in her name. Accepting this evidence, the court directed her ex-husband to return 59.5 sovereigns of gold or its equivalent market value.

However, her claim for the six sovereigns supposedly given by extended family members was rejected due to lack of proof. The court also dismissed her request for return of household items, citing insufficient evidence of ownership or misappropriation.

In its broader remarks, the court highlighted a pattern where a woman’s wedding jewellery is often kept by her husband’s family, with no acknowledgment or list provided to her. This lack of documentation becomes problematic during disputes, especially those involving dowry abuse or separation.

“The reality is that women rarely receive formal receipts for their wedding ornaments, and they often lose access to them post-marriage. When conflicts emerge, the woman’s inability to present written proof should not prevent her from receiving justice,” the court noted, urging sensitivity to the practical challenges faced by women in such matters.