ROUSANARA BEGUM versus S.K. SALAHUDDIN @ SK SALAUDDIN & ANR.

Citation: [2025] 12 S.C.R. 273 · Decided: 02-12-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KAROL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 12 S.C.R. 273 : 2025 INSC 1375
Rousanara Begum 
v. 
S.K. Salahuddin @ SK Salauddin & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 5164-5165 of 2025)
02 December 2025
[Sanjay Karol* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether goods given to a daughter at the time of her 
marriage by her father, or to the bridegroom, can be by application 
of law, returned to the daughter-appellant given that their marriage 
had ended in divorce.
Headnotes†
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – 
s.3 – Mahr or other properties of Muslim woman to be given to 
her at the time of divorce – Goods given to a daughter at the 
time of her marriage by her father, or to the bridegroom, if by 
application of law, can be returned to the daughter-appellant 
given that their marriage had ended in divorce:
Held: s.3 deals with mehr/dower and/or other properties given 
to a woman at the time of her marriage clearing the way for the 
woman to set up a claim against her husband, or claim back from 
her husband properties given, as the case may be – Scope and 
object of 1986 Act is to secure dignity and financial protection of 
a Muslim women post her divorce which aligns with the rights of a 
women u/Art.21 – Construction of 1986 Act, thus, must keep at the 
forefront equality, dignity and autonomy and must be done where 
inherent patriarchal discrimination is still the order of the day – On 
facts, the primary basis for High Court not giving the amount and 
gold in question to the appellant-divorced muslim wife, was the 
apparent contradiction between the statement of the Kazi-marriage 
Registrar and the father of the appellant – High Court recorded 
that the latter statement regarding writing and overwriting in the 
entry in the marriage register is proved by him having produced the 
same before the Court – Mere allegation as to his conduct being 
suspicious on account of overwriting in the marriage register not 
* Author
274
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
sufficient to discard his testimony – This Court under its plenary, 
Art.136 jurisdiction does not interfere with the findings of the High 
Court simply because there are two views possible, this case, does 
not fall under this exception for the High Court missed the purposive 
construction goalpost and instead proceeded to adjudicate the 
matter purely as a civil dispute – Constitution of India prescribes an 
aspiration for all, equality which is, obviously, yet to be achieved – 
Courts, in doing their bit to this end must ground their reasoning in 
social justice adjudication – Thus, the judgment and order passed 
by the High Court set aside – Respondent to remit the amount 
directly into the bank account of the appellant. [Paras 8-10]
Case Law Cited
Daniel Latifi v. Union of India [2001] Supp. 3 SCR 419 : (2001) 
7 SCC 740 – referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Muslim 
Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986; Constitution 
of India; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
List of Keywords
Mahr; Properties of Muslim woman; Goods given to daughter at 
the time of her marriage by her father, or to bridegroom; Divorce; 
Dignity and financial protection of Muslim women post her divorce; 
Inherent patriarchal discrimination; Statement of Kazi-marriage 
Registrar; Purposive construction; Social justice adjudication.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s). 
5164-5165 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2022 and 31.01.2024 
of the High Court at Calcutta in CRR No. 489 of 2019 and CRAN 
No. 9 of 2023, respectively.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Syed Mehdi Imam, Mohd Parvez Dabas, Uzmi Jamil Husain, Tabrez 
Ahmad, Ms. Pooja Kumari.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 
275
Rousanara Begum v. S.K. Salahuddin @ SK Salauddin & Anr.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Ms. Kumud Lata Das, Sukesh Ghosh, Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, 
Ms. Shikha Sandhu, Ms. Pooja Rathore, Ms. Hemangi Saikia, 
Kunal Mimani, Ms. Shraddha Chirania.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sanjay Karol, J.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
2.	
These appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 24th 
November 2022 passed in CRR No. 489 of 2019 and Order dated 
31st January 2024 passed in application for modification bearing No. 
CRAN 9 of 2023 by the High Court at Calcutta, at the instance of 
the Appellant herein, Rousanara Begum, who is the former wife of 
the Respondent No.1 - S.K Salahuddin1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.