Stridhan and woman's Estate

 

Q. 19. What is meant by 'Stridhan' and 'Women's estate'? Enumerate the kinds of properties which are recognised as stridhan and women's estate. State the incidents of stridhan and women's estate.

Or

Distinguish between Stridhan and the woman's estate as recognised under the old Hindu Law. What changes have been made in this connection by Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?

Or

'Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has effected a revolutionary change in the position of a female Hindu to hold and possess property'. Do you agree with the statement? Refer to the leading cases in this connection.

or

What is Stridhana according to the traditional law. Have any changes been brought about in the law. Discuss.

 

Meaning of Stridhana

 

The word Stridhana is derived from the word 'Stri' which means woman and 'dhana' which means property. Thus it means, literally, woman's property. The word Stridhana is used in different senses in different schools and in the Smritis. It will be clear from the examination of various texts that the term Stridhana is not used in its etymological sense but it has a technical meaning. As decided in the case of Rajamma v. Varidarajula Chetti, AIR 1957 Mad 198, gift to Hindu woman before marriage or marriage gifts or post nuptial gifts constitute stridhana, meaning woman's property.

 

Stridhana according to Smritis - The Smriti writers do not use the term Stridhara in its etymological sense at comprising any kind of property possessed by a woman nor do they define what is meant by the term. They simply enumerate certain kinds of property, as constituting stridhana.

 Manu enumerates following six kinds of stridhana

 

1. Gifts made before the nuptial fire - which means gifts made at the time of marriage before the fire which is witness of the nuptial (adhyagni).

 

2. Gifts made at the bridal procession ie while the bride is being led from the residence of her parents to that of her husband (adhyarahanika).

3. Gifts made in token of love i.e. those made through affection by her father-in-law and mother in-law (pritidatta) and those made at the time of her making obeisance at the feet of elders(padavandanika).

 

4. Gifts made by the father.

5. Gifts made by the mother. 6. Gifts made by a brother.

 

However, all the commentators agree that the above is not an exhaustive enumeration of stridhana. To the above list, Vishnu adds

 

7. Gifts made by a husband to his wife on supersession, i.e. on the occasion of his taking another wife (adhivedanika).

 8. Gifts subsequent i.e. made after marriage by her husband's relations or her parents relations

(anwadheyaka).

 

9. Shulka or the fee for which a girl is given in marriage.

10 Gifts from sons and relations.

 

Devata mentions one more, viz

 

11. Food and vesture.

 

12. According to all Smriti writers, ornaments given by husband are stridhana property.

 

Yajnavalkya defines stridhana as follows

 

"What was given to a woman by the father, the mother, the husband or a brother, or received by her before the nuptial fire, or presented to her on her husband's marriage to another wife and the rest (adya) is denominated Stridhana. So that which is given by kindered, as well as her marriage fee (sulka) and anything bestowed after marriage."

Katyayana expressly excludes from the category of Stridhana, the gifts made by strangers during coverture (wed-lock) as also the property acquired by a woman during coverture by mechanical arts. He says that

"The wealth which is earned by mechanical arts, or which is received through affection from a stranger is subject to her husband's dominion. The rest is pronounced to be Stridhana."

 Concluding the Smriti texts, it may be said that it is only gifts obtained by a woman from her relations and her ornaments and apparel which constitute her Stridhana and that the only sorts of gifts from strangers which come under that nomination are presents before the nuptial fire and those made at the bridal procession. But neither gifts obtained from strangers at any other time, nor her acquisitions by labour or skill constitute her Stridhana

 

Stridhana according to Commentators

 

In determination what is stridhana according to a particular school, the court has to look to what the commentators, who are authorities in that particular school, have said on the subject. In this reference we will consider the meaning of Stridhana as per different schools as follows

 

Mitakshara School

 

The following is the definition of Stridhana as given by Vijnaneswara in the Mitakshara

 

"That which was given by the father, by the mother, by the husband or by a brother, and that which was presented by the maternal uncles and the rest at the time of wedding before the nuptial fire, and a gift at a second marriage or gratuity account of supersession; and as indicated by the word adya (and rest), property obtained by:-

 

1. Inheritance,

2 Purchase,

3. Partition,

4. Seizure eg. adverse possession,

5. Finding,

 

and this is a Stridhana according to Manu and the rest.

 

Thus, according to Mitakshara, property of any description belonging to a woman is Stridhana. It may be a gift from relations or a gift from strangers. It may be property acquired by inheritance or property obtained on partition. It may be her earnings or it may be property acquired by her from any other source.

 

Vijnaneswara and other great commentators, who followed him, succeeded in effecting a beneficial change in the archaic Smiriti Law and placed women almost on a footing of equality with men as regards the capacity to hold property. But since the decision of the Privy Council in 1912, the whole of Vijnaneswara's expression has been discarded.

 

A woman may inherit the ordinary property of a male, ie, of her husband's father, son etc. She may also inherit the Stridhana of a female ie of her mother, mother's mother or daughter. Both these kinds of inherited property are Stridhana according to Mitakshara but the Privy Council has held as to both these kinds of property, that they are not Stridhana. In the case of Bhagwandeen v. Maina Baee, (1867) 11 MIA 487, their Lordships held that the property inherited by a widow from her husband: the property inherited by a woman from a male was not her Stridhana. On her death it will pass, not to her heirs, but to the next heirs of her husband. In other case Sheo Shankar v. Debi Sahai. (1903) 25 All 468, 309A, the question was whether Stridhana inherited by a daughter from her mother ie, the property inherited by woman from a female, was her Stridhana? Their Lordship held that it was not and that it didn't descend to her (daughter's) heirs but to the next heirs of the mother.

As to the share obtained by a widow on partition of the joint family property, it has been held by the Privy Council in Devi Memgal Prasad v. Mahdeo Prasad, (1912) 34 All 234, that it is not her Stridhana even under the Mitakshara Law.

 

Dayabhaga School

 

In this connection, it is necessary to note the following two propositions

 (a) every kind of Stridhana belonging to a woman passes on her death to her heirs;

(b) but every kind of Stridhana cannot be disposed of by a woman at her pleasure,

The only kinds of stridhana which she can dispose of at her pleasure and without her husband's consent are gifts from relations. She cannot dispose of any other kind of Stridhana such as gifts from stranger or property acquired by her by mechanical arts, without her husband's consent.

Jimutuvahana rejects the definition of Stridhana given in the Mitakshara, and defines Stridhana in these words

 "That alone is stridhana which she (a woman) has power to give, sell or use independently of her husband's control."

 

The result is, it may be said

(1) affirmatively that all gifts from relations constitute Stridhana, except a gift of immovable property made by the husband, and that gifts from strangers also constitute, stridhana if made before the nuptial fire or at the bridal procession;

 

(2) negatively, that the following properties are not Stridhana, viz.;

 (i) property inherited by a woman,

(ii) property obtained by her on partition,

(iii) gifts from strangers except those made before the Nuptial fire or at the bridal procession, and

(iv) property acquired by her by mechanical arts.

 

In the case of Sheo Shankar v. Debi Sahai, (1903) 25 All 468, their Lordships of the Privy Council referring to the term Stridhana said that the Bengal School of Lawyers have always limited the use of the term narrowly, applying it exclusively to the kinds of woman's property enumerated in primitive sacred texts. The author of the Mitakshara and some other authors (that is the Varmitrodaya and the Mayukha) seem to apply the term broadly to every kind of property which a woman can possess, from whatever source it may be derived.

 

Special Features of Stridhana

 

A Hindu female may acquire property from various sources. She may acquire it by gifts, or by inheritance, or on partition. She may also acquire it by her own labour and skill. But all property acquired by her is not Stridhana.

 

Whether a particular kind of property is Stridhana or not, depends on;

 (1) the source from which the property was acquired;

(ii) the status at the time of the acquisition, ie whether she acquired it during maidenhood, coverture or widowhood, and

(iii) the school to which she belongs.

 

The distinction between the property which is Stridhana and which is not Stridhana is important in two respects - first, as regards succession and secondly, as regards the power of alienation. Stridhana of every description belongs to a woman and passes on her death to her heirs. It is not so with regard  to woman's property of which she is the absolute owner, and which she may dispose of at her pleasure, if not in all cases during coverture, in all cases during widowhood.

 

But a woman is not the absolute owner of property which is her Stridhana, nor can she dispose it off at her pleasure even during widowhood. She is merely a qualified owner of such property; in other words she takes only a limited interest in the property, the nature and extent of which depends on the character of the property.

 

Present Hindu Law.-The Hindu woman's estate was the creation of the British Indian Courts and the Privy Council, it received legislative recognition by the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, and it was finally abolished by Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, transforms limited estates of Hindu women into absolute ones. In other words, the said section enlarges the scope of the word "stridhan" so that now it is not to be understood in a Paribhasic (technical) sense but in its etymological sense. Now a Hindu woman will have full power of disposal over all properties of theirs [barring those covered by sub-section (2) of Section 14] either by acts inter vivos or by will, and on their death all properties shall devolve on their own heirs prescribed by the Act.

 

Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act

Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act provides: "Any property possessed by a female Hindu whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner."

Explanation: In this sub-section 'property' includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.

 

2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property".

Object of Section 14 of the Act

 

The object of section 14 of the Act is ten-fold: first to remove the disability of a female to acquire and hold property as an absolute owner, secondly, to convert any estate already held by a woman on the date of commencement of the Act as a limited owner, into an absolute estate. In the case of her death intestate she becomes a fresh stock of descent and the property devolves by succession on her own heirs. This section implements the concept of Indian constitution of equality of sexes.

Scope of Section 14 of the Act

 

While examining the scope of section 14 of the Act, in Eramma v Veerupana (AIR 1970 SC 1730) the Supreme Court observed:

 

"The property possessed by a female Hindu, as contemplated in the section, is clearly property to which she has acquired some kind of title whether before or after the commencement of the Act. It may be noticed that explanation to section 14(1) sets out the various modes of acquisition of the property by a female Hindu and indicates that the section applies only to property to which the female Hindu has acquired some kind of title, however restricted the nature of her interest may be. The words 'as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner' as given in the last portion of sub-section (1) of the section clearly suggest that the legislature intended that the limited ownership of a Hindu female should be changed into full ownership. In other words section 14(1) of the Act contemplates that a Hindu female who, in the absence of this provision would have been a limited owner of the property, will now become a full owner of the same by virtue of this section. The object of the section is to extinguish the estate called 'limited estate' or 'widows estate' in Hindu law and to make a Hindu woman who under the old law would have been only a limited owner, a full owner of the property will have all powers of disposition and to make the estate heritable by her own heirs and not revertible to the heirs of the last male holder.... It does not in any way confer a title on the female Hindu where she did not in fact possess any vestige or title".

 

Applicability of Section 14 of the Act

 

Section 14 of the Act applies to a female:

 

i) who is a Hindu

 

ii) who acquired property with limited rights or as stridhan;

 

iii) who is in possession either actually or constructively. When the sub-section (1) of section 14 applied the female gets absolute rights in the said property on the date of the commencement of the Act.

A Hindu female may acquire property from various sources. Several descriptions of property that may be lawfully acquired by a Hindu female are:

 

1. Gifts and bequests from relations.-Property given or bequeathed to a Hindu female, whether during maidenhood, coverture or widowhood by her parents and their relations or by her husband and his relations is Stridhana according to all schools.

2. Gifts and bequeaths from strangers-Property given or bequeathed to a Hindu female by a

 

stranger during motherhood, before the nuptial fire or at the bridal procession is Stridhana according to all schools.

 

3. Share on partition. It is not Stridhana and it does not pass on her death to the Stridhana heirs but reverts to the sons or grand-sons out of whose portions it was taken out.

4. Property given in lieu of maintenance.-Money paid to a Hindu female periodically for her maintenance and the arrears of such maintenance or a lump-sum of money given to her in lieu of maintenance constitutes Stridhana according to all schools.

 

5. Property acquired by inheritance-Property acquired by inheritance by a woman either from male or female is not Stridhana. She takes only a limited interest in the property and on her death, the property passes not to her heirs but to the next heirs of the person from whom she inherited it

 

6. Property acquired by mechanical arts-Property acquired by a Hindu female by mechanical arts or otherwise by her own exertions during maidenhood or widowhood is Stridhana according to all the schools.

 

7. Property acquired by compromise-As to the properties obtained by a woman under a compromise or a family arrangement, there is no presumption, that she takes only a life estate. What she takes, depends on the terms of the deed and other circumstances.

 

8. Property obtained by adverse possession-Property acquired by a Hindu female whether during coverture or widowhood by adverse possession, becomes her Stridhana according to all the schools.

 

9. Property purchased with Stridhana-Property purchased by a woman with her stridhana and the savings of the income of Stridhana constitutes Stridhana according to all the schools.

 10. Property acquired from other sources-Property acquired from any source other than those enumerated above depends upon facts and circumstances to become Stridhana property.

 

  

Q.19 (b) Has a Hindu woman been conferred with the right to seek the return of gifts and items of dowry given to her at the time of marriage if and when she is forced to leave her husband's home? Refer to case law.

Stridiana includes gifts made before the nuptial fire, gifts made at the bridal procession, gifts made in token of love by her father-in-law and mother-in-law and those made at the time of her making obeisance at the feet of elders, and gifts made by her father, mother and brother. A Hindu married woman is the absolute owner of Stridhana and can deal with it in any manner she likes. Thus, a Hindu woman can file a civil suit for the return of such gifts and items of dowry if and when she is forced to leave her husband's home. There is a conflict of opinion whether she can apply under section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act when some proceeding is pending under that Act. The majority view is that section 27 is not applicable in respect of the exclusive property of the wife. Thus, under civil law, she has the remedy of filing a regular suit for the said relief.

 

The wife has also a remedy under Criminal law to file a complaint under section 406 of the I.P.C In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, AIR 1985 SC 628, the Lordships of the Supreme Court observed:

 

"The mere facturn of the husband and wife living together does not entitle either of them to commit a breach of criminal law and if one does, then he or she will be liable for all the consequences of such breach. In the case of Stridhana property, the title of which always remains with the wife though possession of the same may sometimes be with the husband or other members of his family. If the husband or any other member of his family commits such an offence, they will be liable to punishment for the offence of criminal breach of trust under sections 405 and 406, LPC. It cannot be said that once a woman enters her matrimonial home she completely loses her exclusive stridhana by the same being treated as a joint property of the spouses, in other words, if this view is taken in its literal sense the consequence, would be to deprive the wife of the absolute character and nature of her Stridhan and makes the husband a co-owner of the same; such a concept is neither contemplated nor known to Hindu Law of Stridhan, nor does it appeal to pure common sense. It cannot also be said that once a married woman enters her matrimonial home, her Stridhana property undergoes a vital change so as to protect the husband from being prosecuted even if he dishonestly misappropriates the same. For instance, properties like jewellery, clothing, cash etc. given by her parents as gifts cannot be touched by the husband except in very extreme circumstances, viz. where the husband is in imprisonment or is in a serious distress. Even then the religion and the law enjoins that the husband must compensate the wife and if he cannot do so, he must pay fine to the king which means that the husband would be liable to penal action under the present law of the land.

 

The husband, being only a custodian of the Stridhan of his wife, cannot be said to be in joint possession thereof and thus acquires a joint interest in the property. It is an extreme travesty of justice for a court to say that whenever a married woman demands her Stridhan property from her husband, she should be driven to the dilatory process of a civil court and her husband would be debarred from being prosecuted by a Criminal Court."

 

Even if the stridhan property of a married woman is placed in the custody of her husband or in laws, they would be deemed to be trustees and bound to return the same if and when demanded by her.