3 December 2025 Legal Updates

DIVORCED MUSLIM WOMAN ENTITLED TO RECOVER GIFTS GIVEN TO HUSBAND AT MARRIAGE: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title: 

• Rousanara Begum vs. S.K. Salahuddin @ SK Salauddin & Anr.

(b) Court: 

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision: 

• December 2, 2025

(d) Bench: 

• Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Key Facts

The appellant, Rousanara Begum, claimed return of ₹17,67,980/- worth of dowry, gold ornaments, and household items after her divorce. The Trial Court and Revisional Courts had partly allowed her claim, but the High Court of Calcutta reversed the order, relying on contradictions in evidence.

Legal Issue

Whether gifts given to the bride or bridegroom at the time of marriage can be reclaimed by the wife after divorce under the 1986 Act.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning & Decision

• Section 3(1) of the 1986 Act entitles a divorced Muslim woman to Fair provision and maintenance, Mehr or dower and all properties given to her before, during, or after marriage by relatives, friends, husband, or his relatives.
• The High Court erred in giving more weight to the father’s statement (from a Section 498A IPC case where the husband was acquitted) over the Marriage Registrar’s evidence.
• The purpose of the 1986 Act is to secure dignity and financial protection for divorced Muslim women, aligning with Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution.
• Courts must adopt a purposive interpretation promoting gender justice, equality, and dignity, especially in cases involving patriarchal discrimination.

Outcome

Appeal allowed. High Court’s order set aside. The husband directed to pay the claimed amount directly to the appellant’s bank account. 9% annual interest imposed in case of non-compliance.

POLICE, COURTS MUST ACT AS 'INITIAL FILTERS' TO AVOID PROSECUTIONS WITH NO REASONABLE PROSPECT OF CONVICTION: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title: 

• Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba vs. The State of West Bengal

(b) Court: 

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision: 

• December 2, 2025

(d) Bench: 

• Justice Manmohan and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Key Facts

The appellant, son of a co-owner of a property, was accused of restraining, intimidating, and capturing videos/photos of a woman (the complainant) when she attempted to enter the property. A civil suit was already pending between the co-owners, and an injunction order existed directing joint possession and restraint from creating third-party rights. The complainant refused to give a judicial statement under Section 164 CrPC. The trial court and High Court refused discharge; the Supreme Court examined the sufficiency of material to proceed.

Legal Issues

• Whether the allegations disclosed offences under Sections 341, 354C, and 506 IPC.
• Whether the stage of discharge under Section 227 CrPC was correctly applied.
• Whether pending civil disputes should influence criminal proceedings.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning & Decision

1. Stage of Discharge (Section 227 CrPC):

• The Court reaffirmed that at the discharge stage, the judge must sift evidence to see if there is a strong suspicion (not mere suspicion) to proceed.
• If two views are possible, and one gives rise only to suspicion (not grave suspicion), discharge is appropriate.
• The judge is not a post office; must apply judicial mind.

2. Offence-wise Analysis:

• Section 354C (Voyeurism): Not made out. No allegation that the complainant was engaged in a “private act” as defined. Clicking pictures in a common area does not constitute voyeurism.
• Section 506 (Criminal Intimidation): Not made out. No specific threat or injury alleged; FIR was silent on words used.
• Section 341 (Wrongful Restraint): Not made out. The complainant had no right to enter the property as she was not a tenant (only a prospective tenant). The appellant was enforcing his lawful right under an injunction order. Exception to Section 339 IPC applied.
• Abuse of Process & Judicial Economy: The Court criticized the mechanical filing of chargesheets and framing of charges without strong suspicion.

In pending civil disputes, police and courts must be circumspect to avoid clogging the judicial system.

Prosecution without reasonable prospect of conviction compromises fair trial rights.

Outcome

Appeal allowed. Accused discharged.