https://www.verdictum.in/madras-high-court/v-v-s-2026mhc2431-streedhana-remains-exclusive-property-of-wife-husband-return-jewellery-1617089 [04/07, 11:20] sekarreporter1: Home / Court Updates / High Courts / Madras High Court Streedhana Remains Exclusive Property Of Wife With Full Decision-Making Autonomy: Madras High Court Directs Husband To

[04/07, 11:20] sekarreporter1: https://www.verdictum.in/madras-high-court/v-v-s-2026mhc2431-streedhana-remains-exclusive-property-of-wife-husband-return-jewellery-1617089
[04/07, 11:20] sekarreporter1: Home / Court Updates / High Courts / Madras High Court Streedhana Remains Exclusive Property Of Wife With Full Decision-Making Autonomy: Madras High Court Directs Husband To Return Jewellery & Articles The Bench noted that every article gifted by parents holds sentimental value and cannot be frittered away to a husband who rejects her, noted that the husband was still using the cupboard. ByAgatha Shukla|4 July 2026 10:00 AM The Madras High Court has held that streedhana property belongs exclusively to the wife and cannot be treated as joint family property upon her marriage. The Bench noted that a woman must retain complete decision-making autonomy and absolute independence over her personal belongings, gold jewellery, and marital gifts. Addressing the facts of the case, and the orders of the trial court in the cluster of cross matrimonial appeals, the Court set aside a family court order that had denied a woman the return of her personal belongings. The Division Bench directed the husband to return all listed jewels and streedhana articles within four weeks, or otherwise pay their current value with 7.5% interest per annum, while simultaneously upholding the dissolution of the marriage on grounds of continuous mental cruelty. Also Read – Married Woman Govt Servant Eligible For 12-Week Maternity Leave For Third Child: Madras High Court Rejects Woman’s Plea Seeking Payment For 1 Year… The Court noted that small articles gifted by parents possess immense sentimental value as reminders of her life prior to marriage. The Court declared that a wife is entitled to retain custody out of respect for her parents, and these articles cannot be left with a husband and relatives who neglected her and questioned the paternity of her child. A Division Bench comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Rajasekar in the lead matter, observed, “…The Trial Court had very correctly stated that streedhana property can never be stated to be the property of the joint family or the family to which a lady enters on marriage. It still remains her exclusive property. She should have autonomy to decide how to deal with the said property, with her jewels. It is not just independence but autonomy to take a decision as to the holding of the jewels and the other articles…”. Also Read – Madras High Court Orders US National Laura Frances To Be Treated As Hindu For Temple Entry “…Naturally, she requires protection in her life. One protection which she would expect is for the articles given by her father to be returned to her…For every lady, any small article given by her parents, would be of immense value. It not only has the value attached to it as an article, but has a sentimental value. It is the only reminder of her life in her parents’ house, which memories she had taken to her marital house…”, the Bench further observed. Advocate M. Arvind Kumar appeared for the appellant and Advocate Sanjay Pinto appeared for the respondent. “…Once the marital relationship suffers, naturally she would expects the articles to be given back to her. They do not remind her of the marriage, but remind her of the love and affection bestowed on her by her parents. She has to retain custody out of her respect for her parents. The articles cannot be just frittered away by her to her husband, who has rejected her, and the relatives of her husband who had neglected her and who had even questioned the paternity of their own heir.”, the Bench had noted. Also Read – E-Court Case Status Or Adjournment Order Doesn’t Possess Traits Of Judgment; Writ Appeal Against It Not Maintainable: Madras High Court The brief facts of the case indicate that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on December 7, 2014, following which she (respondent) resided in a joint family environment. Right from the inception of the matrimonial alliance, she faced severe neglect, physical appearance shaming, restriction of movement, and financial deprivation from her husband and in-laws. Furthermore, her streedhana jewellery was forcefully taken into the custody of her mother-in-law, and upon returning with her newborn child, her husband questioned the baby’s paternity. The trial court passed a common order on September 20, 2023, and allowed the wife’s petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, but dismissed her application, for the return of her streedhana articles on the ground that she had temporary custody. It also dismissed the husband’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Both parties subsequently preferred appeals before the High Court. Also Read – No Obscene Depiction Of Women; Attire Of Dancers Should Be Modest: Madras High Court While Permiting Temple Program The Court extracted the ratio that a blanket denial by the husband regarding a detailed list of streedhana items is legally unsustainable. The Court rejected the husband’s defense that the wife took the jewellery during her pregnancy, pointing out that she had left for delivery and had no reason to permanently vacate the home with all her belongings at that time. It observed that the husband continued to use the cupboard gifted by her parents, indicating that the articles remained in his household. The Court concluded that cumulative neglect, bodily shaming, and questioning a child’s paternity constitute severe mental cruelty, making any restitution of conjugal rights an exercise in futility. “We again note that there was no specific denial about the correctness of the list of articles. The petitioner was not permitted to enter the marital house when she came back with the baby. She had gone for birth of the child. When she came back with the new born baby, the paternity was questioned. There was no occasion for her to take back all her jewels. The cupboard still remained in the house of the respondent. If she wanted to take back the jewels, she would have taken back them in the cupboard which was given to her. It is also admitted in evidence by the respondent that the cupboard is still used by him and his family member”, the Court said. Consequentially, the Court dismissed the husband’s appeals, thereby confirming the dissolution of marriage and the dismissal of the restitution petition. It directed the appellant to return all the jewels and articles listed in the annexure within four weeks, failing which the wife would be entitled to their current value along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of marriage until payment. Cause Title: V v. S (Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:2431) Appearances: Appellant: M. Arvind Kumar, Advocate. Respondent: Sanjay Pinto, Advocate. Click here to read/download the Judgment Justice C.V. KarthikeyanJustice K RajasekarMadras High Court Agatha Shukla Next Story Married Woman Govt Servant Eligible For 12-Week Maternity Leave For Third Child: Madras High Court Rejects Woman’s Plea Seeking Payment For 1 Year Leave The Madras High Court was considering a writ petition instituted by an Office Assistant serving in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court. ByTulip Kanth|4 July 2026 10:40 AM While relying on an amendment inserted in Rule 101(A) of the Fundamental Rules which provides that in the case of a married woman Government servant having two or more than two surviving children, maternity leave has to be given on full pay for a period not exceeding 12 weeks, the Madras High Court has rejected a woman employee’s request seeking payment for one-year leave period for her third pregnancy. The High Court was considering a writ petition instituted by an Office Assistant serving in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Magisterial Level, Poonamallee, seeking a direction to the Treasury to make payment from June 2025 for the period of maternity leave sanctioned (March 26, 2025, to May 25, 2026) to the petitioner. The Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice R. Sakthivel held, “Therefore, there is no provision under the Fundamental Rules to grant maternity leave for third child. The Treasury Officer, Tiruvallur, also relied on the policy decision of the Government relying on the Fundamental Rules that there is no provision under the Fundamental Rules to grant maternity leave for the third child.” “Therefore, the grant of maternity leave to married woman government servant for more than two children are to be granted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 13.03.2026. The Government Order, amending Fundamental Rule 101(A) was issued in pursuance to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, the High Court is not expected to grant the relief over and above the terms and conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 13.03.2026 which was issued implementing the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India”, it added. Advocate G. Priyadharshini represented the Appellant while Advocate K.Umesh Rao represented the Respondent. Factual Background The petitioner, who has three children, had applied for maternity leave for her delivery and baby care for 365 days for a period from May 26, 2025 to May 25, 2026, along with the medical certificate before the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Magisterial Level. The Judicial Magistrate sanctioned maternity leave in line with the G.O.Ms.No.84, Human Resources Management Department dated August 23, 2021. As per the said Government Order, the petitioner claimed that she was eligible for maternity leave for 365 days. The Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur, approved the maternity leave granted by Judicial Magistrate. Consequently, salary bills were presented to the Treasury concerned. The Treasury, on June 26, 2025 turned down the bills citing Fundamental Rule 101(A) on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible for maternity leave of 365 days for the third child. Since the Treasury refused to pay the salary for 365 days’ maternity leave, the writ petition came to be instituted. Reasoning Referring to Fundamental Rules 101, the Bench explained that maternity leave should be granted to a married female government servant with less than two surviving children. The Bench further explained that there is no rule provision in the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules to grant maternity leave to permanent/non-permanent married government servants for the third child. The Bench noticed that the Government had taken a policy decision in G.O.Ms No.237, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, regarding the two surviving children norm for the grant of maternity leave. The Bench thus clarified that there is no provision under the Fundamental Rules to grant maternity leave for a third child. The Bench noted that the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of the grant of maternity leave to the female employee for a third child, and the said judgment became the law which had to be followed scrupulously. The Bench further noted that the Apex Court had restricted the benefit to 12 weeks for the third child, and an amendment was inserted in Rule 101(A) of the Fundamental Rules. The Bench was of the view that the High Court, in exercise of powers of judicial review, could not grant the relief contrary to the policy decision of the Government, which was issued based on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India and by amending Rule 101(A) of the Fundamental Rules. “Thus, those judgments of the High Court have denuded to lose its status as precedence and may not be followed for the purpose of granting the relief”, it added. The Bench thus disposed of the Petition by holding that the relief sought in the writ petition could not be granted. “However, the eligible benefits as per the Fundamental Rules as amended in G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 13.03.2026 shall be granted to the petitioner by following the procedures as contemplated in the rules”, it ordered. Cause Title: S.Divya v. The Registrar General (Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:2429) Appearance Appellant: Advocate G. Priyadharshini Respondent: Advocate K. Umesh Rao, Government Counsel D.R. Gouri Click here to read/download Order Madras High CourtJustice SM SubramaniamJustice R.Sakthivel Tulip Kanth Assistant Editor Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University. Next Story Madras High Court Orders US National Laura Frances To Be Treated As Hindu For Temple Entry The Court held that holding American citizenship or bearing a Western name cannot be grounds to presume a person is Christian. ByAastha Kaushik|3 July 2026 4:00 PM Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, Madras High Court The Madras High Court has held that merely because a person is a foreigner, they cannot be denied recognition as a Hindu when their conduct and belief unequivocally establish their adherence to Hinduism. The Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order that arbitrarily characterized an American-born Hindu convert as an “American Christian woman” and restricted her movement to the outer precincts of Sri Arulmighu Abishta Varatharajaperumal Temple. Quashing the impugned order, the Court ruled that Hinduism is historically inclusive and does not prescribe mandatory formal conversion ceremonies or certificates. It was observed that a bona fide intention coupled with unequivocal conduct serves as sufficient proof of embracing the faith, thereby establishing that the petitioner must be treated on par with any other Hindu woman devotee without any discrimination based on nationality or name. The Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held, “Merely because the petitioner bears the name “Laura Frances” or holds American citizenship, she cannot be denied recognition as a Hindu when her conduct and belief unequivocally establish her adherence to Hinduism. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be treated as a Hindu devotee. Consequently, all rights and obligations applicable to a Hindu woman devotee in relation to temple worship shall equally apply to the petitioner. If Hindu women are permitted, in accordance with the customs, usages, Agamas and regulations governing a particular temple, to enter any specified area or perform any particular ritual, the petitioner shall also be entitled to the same. Equally, the petitioner shall not claim any special privilege or right not otherwise available to any other Hindu woman devotee.” Brief Facts The Petitioner, an American citizen, embraced and practiced Hinduism for several years, a fact reflected in her official records and visa applications. Her marriage to a Hindu man was solemnized within the premises of Sri Arulmighu Abishta Varatharajaperumal Temple. During a subsequent visit to the said temple, certain local persons objected to her entry under the mistaken impression that she did not belong to the Hindu faith. Following a communication sent by the Petitioner’s husband seeking permission for her free entry and worship, the respondent authorities issued an impugned order. The said order characterized the Petitioner as an “American Christian woman” and restricted her to the outer precincts of the temple on the grounds of maintaining Agamic practices and preventing the hurt of other devotees’ sentiments. Aggrieved by this restriction, the Petitioner moved the High Court by way of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Contentions of the Parties The Petitioner contended that the description of the Petitioner as an “American Christian woman” in the impugned order was factually incorrect and wholly unsupported by any material evidence. It was submitted that the Petitioner bona fide professed Hinduism and had been following the faith for several years, and therefore, she could not be arbitrarily categorized as a Christian merely on account of her foreign nationality or name. The Respondents argued that since the Petitioner was admittedly an American citizen, she was presumed to be a Christian. It was further contended that the Petitioner was never prevented from entering the temple altogether; rather, she was only advised to remain within the outer precincts to appease the apprehensions expressed by certain devotees present at the spot. Observations of the Court The Court observed that Hinduism has historically been inclusive and accommodating, and unlike certain other religions, it does not prescribe any mandatory formal ceremony of conversion or the issuance of a certificate as a condition precedent for acceptance into the faith. The Court noted that while a bare declaration of belief does not constitute conversion, a bona fide intention to embrace Hinduism, coupled with conduct unequivocally expressing such intention, constitutes sufficient evidence of conversion without the necessity of formal purification ceremonies. The Court found that the documentary materials and averments clearly demonstrated that the Petitioner consistently identified herself as a Hindu and conducted herself accordingly, making the respondents’ finding characterizing her as an “American Christian woman” factually erroneous and unsustainable. It was held that holding American citizenship or bearing a Western name could not be grounds to deny her recognition as a Hindu when her conduct established her adherence to the faith. “In the present case, the documentary materials placed before this Court, coupled with the averments contained in the affidavit, clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has consistently identified herself as a Hindu and has conducted herself in a manner that unequivocally establishes her acceptance and practice of the Hindu faith. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the finding recorded by the respondents describing the petitioner as an “American Christian woman” is factually erroneous and unsustainable”, the Court said. Concluding that the Petitioner must be treated as a Hindu devotee, the Court ruled that she was entitled to all rights of temple worship available to any other Hindu woman devotee, subject to the customs, usages, Agamas, and regulations governing the temple, without claiming any special privileges. Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed, and the impugned order was declared illegal to that extent. Cause Title: Laura Frances Iyengar v. TN HR and CE Department and Ors. [Neutral Citation:2026:MHC:2316] Appearances: Petitioner: Advocate Sunny Sheen Akkara Respondents: Standing Counsel P.Rajagopalan Click here to read/download the Order Justice D Bharatha ChakravarthyMadras High Court Aastha Kaushik SIMILAR POSTS Madras High Court Married Woman Govt Servant Eligible For 12-Week Maternity Leave For Third Child: Madras High Court… Madras High Court Madras High Court Orders US National Laura Frances To Be Treated As Hindu For Temple Entry Madras High Court E-Court Case Status Or Adjournment Order Doesn’t Possess Traits Of Judgment; Writ Appeal Against It… Madras High Court No Obscene Depiction Of Women; Attire Of Dancers Should Be Modest: Madras High Court While Permiting… About Verdictum About Us Our Team Privacy Policy Terms of Use Contact Us Write for Us Social Media Find Lawyer Advertise with Us Newsletter © Copyright 2025Powered by Hocalwire

https://www.verdictum.in/madras-high-court/sdivya-v-the-registrar-general-2026mhc2429-govt-servant-maternity-leave-1617093