ROUSANARA BEGUM v. SK SALAHUDDIN @ SK SALAUDDIN
Interpretation of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986: Ensuring Dignity and Financial Security for Divorced Muslim Women; Purposive Construction and Social Justice.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 1375
Decision Date: 02-12-2025
List of Laws
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Article 136 of the Constitution of India
Case Brief
- Facts: Rousanara Begum appealed a High Court order that denied her claim for the return of properties (including dowry, gold ornaments, and other items) given at the time of her marriage to S.K. Salahuddin, which ended in divorce. The High Court based its decision on discrepancies between marriage certificates and statements regarding who received the properties.
- Procedural Posture: The case originated from an application filed by Rousanara Begum seeking the return of properties under Section 3 of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. After multiple rounds of litigation before various lower courts, including remands and revisions, the High Court of Calcutta overturned the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's order in favor of the respondent. This appeal was then brought before the Supreme Court.
- Issue: Whether the High Court erred in denying the appellant's claim for the return of properties given at the time of her marriage, based on discrepancies in evidence, and whether the High Court properly considered the scope and object of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 in securing the dignity and financial protection of a divorced Muslim woman.
- Holding: Yes, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the High Court missed the purposive construction of the Act and proceeded to adjudicate the matter purely as a civil dispute, failing to ground its reasoning in social justice adjudication.
- Reasoning: The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning, which primarily relied on the apparent contradiction between the marriage registrar's statement and the appellant's father's statement. The Court noted that the High Court overlooked the fact that the father's statement was given in proceedings under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, where the respondent was acquitted. The Court emphasized 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 divorced Muslim women, aligning with the rights of women under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court stated that the construction of the Act must keep at the forefront equality, dignity, and autonomy, especially considering the lived experiences of women in smaller towns and rural areas where patriarchal discrimination persists. The Court referenced Daniel Latifi v. Union of India to highlight the object, purpose, and ambit of the Act.