In a hearing that unfolded with a mix of tense exchanges and quiet reflection, the Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a Calcutta High Court order and ruled that a divorced Muslim woman, Rousanara Begum, is entitled to recover money and gold given at the time of her marriage. The bench, led by Justice Sanjay Karol, made it clear that the purpose of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 cannot be diluted by technical doubts over paperwork.
Background
The dispute began years ago. Rousanara married S.K. Salahuddin in 2005, but the relationship collapsed within a few years, leading her to leave her matrimonial home in 2009. She soon filed cases under Section 125 CrPC and Section 498A IPC. After the divorce in 2011, she sought the return of Rs. 17.67 lakh worth of dower, cash, and 30 bhori gold - items her father says were given during the marriage rituals.
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Procedural Flaws, Sends Bihar Murder Case Back for Fresh Section 313
What followed was a long back-and-forth between the magistrate’s court, sessions court, and the High Court. While the trial courts accepted that the amount and gold must be returned, the Calcutta High Court overturned this, relying largely on the father’s earlier statement that the items had been handed to the groom.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court bench wasn’t convinced by the High Court’s approach. During the hearing, Justice Karol remarked, almost in an exasperated tone, “The purpose of this Act is to protect dignity - how can we ignore that?”
Read also: Supreme Court Restores Seniority Rights of PSEB Employee After Nearly Five-Decade Legal Battle
The judges noted that the marriage registrar himself admitted the entry in the register was incorrectly written and that the items were given but not necessarily to the groom personally. The High Court, they said, had simply mistrusted the registrar while giving full weight to the father’s older statement recorded in a completely different criminal case.
The bench observed, “When the registrar produced the original record and explained the overwriting, it is unclear why his testimony was brushed aside.”
The Court also took a broader view of the 1986 Act, stressing that it must be interpreted through the lens of equality and lived experiences of women, particularly in smaller towns. Justice Karol noted that courts “must ground their reasoning in social justice adjudication,” reminding that legislative intent is not merely procedural but protective.
Decision
In a decisive conclusion, the Supreme Court restored the trial court’s direction requiring Salahuddin to return Rs. 7 lakh and 30 bhori gold to Rousanara. The High Court order was set aside. The Court directed the husband to deposit the money directly into her bank account within the stipulated timeline and file a compliance affidavit within six weeks. Failure would attract 9% annual interest.
With this, the Court ended a legal journey stretching more than a decade, reaffirming that a divorced Muslim woman’s financial rights under the 1986 Act cannot be left to the uncertainties of contradicting statements or clerical mistakes. The order concludes simply - the amount must be remitted, and compliance must follow.
Case Title: Rousanara Begum vs. S.K. Salahuddin @ SK Salauddin & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 60854 of 2024
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (under Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Decision Date: 02 December 2025