Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)Cochin Christian Succession Act, 1097
Ramabai Govind vs Raghunath Vasudeo on 12 July, 1951
6. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the additional share as per Al registered partition deed should enure to the benefit of the plaintiff since the 'sthridhanam' amount received from the plaintiff's father was utilised for the benefit of the defendant's family. Further it is also pointed out that the intention of the plaintiff's father-in-law and members of the family was to give one share to the plaintiff acknowledging the receipt of 'sthridhanam' and the plaintiffs share of the property was entrusted to defendant in trust for the benefit of the plaintiff. Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Ramabai v. Raghunath and contended that a presumption has to be drawn that the defendant was keeping the property in trust for the plaintiff.
Mrs. Mary Roy Etc. Etc vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 24 February, 1986
The above mentioned recital would indicate that defendant was given additional share because the amount by way of "sthridhanam' received on his behalf was utilised for the benefit of the family. Question is whether, due to the mere fact that the amount received as 'sthridhanam' was utilised for the benefit of the husband's family, would it confer any right to the wife to claim share in the family properties of the husband. It is trite law that a Christian husband who receives 'sthridhanam' holds the amount in trust for his wife and he is liable to return the amount, if and when his wife demands it. A Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the provisions of the Christian Succession Act, 1097 and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in Mary v. Cherchi and Ors. 1980 KLT 353 has held that it is unnecessary to dialate more into this aspect of the matter whether the amount is treated as Streedhanam within the meaning of the Cochin Christian Succession Act or 'dowry' within the meaning of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Both these enactments clearly state that the amount received by her husband, his parent or guardian shall be kept by him in trust for her. In other words, Streedhanam is always the property of the woman whoever is given custody of the same. Woman can always claim it back and enforce the return of it. A suit for recovering this amount will not be hit by the Dowry Prohibition Act.
1