Several words in this provision carry specific, interpretively important meaning:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“In any proceeding under this Act”<\/strong> \u2014 the provision can only be invoked as part of a proceeding already initiated under the Hindu Marriage Act. This includes petitions for divorce (Section 13), judicial separation (Section 10), nullity (Section 11 or 12), or restitution of conjugal rights (Section 9). The scope of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act is incidental to these main proceedings \u2014 it cannot be invoked through a standalone application independent of any such proceeding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The court may make such provisions”<\/strong> \u2014 the language is permissive, not mandatory. The court has discretion, not an obligation, to address property under this provision. Whether and how the court exercises this discretion depends on the evidence placed before it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Property presented, at or about the time of marriage”<\/strong> \u2014 this phrase defines the temporal scope. Property given well before the wedding or substantially after it may or may not fall within the provision’s reach, depending on how courts interpret the connection to the marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Which may belong jointly to both the husband and wife”<\/strong> \u2014 this is the phrase that has generated the most judicial controversy, and its interpretation has shifted significantly over the decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For many years, courts across India were divided on whether stridhan \u2014 property that belongs exclusively and absolutely to the wife \u2014 could be recovered under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, given that the provision refers to property that “belongs jointly” to both parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some High Courts took the position that since stridhan is exclusively the wife’s property and not jointly owned, it falls outside the ambit of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act entirely. The Punjab and Haryana High Court at one point went further, taking the view that the concept of stridhan itself had been abolished by the combined operation of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court emphatically and repeatedly rejected this narrow reading. In the landmark judgment of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar<\/strong><\/em> (1985), the Supreme Court held that a wife’s absolute ownership over stridhan does not stand transferred into co-ownership with her husband, and that the husband or in-laws who hold stridhan are merely trustees bound to return it on demand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court further held that stridhan can be recovered under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as also under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act \u2014 upholding the provision’s applicability to exclusively-owned women’s property and treating the “jointly” language as referencing the matrimonial context of the gift rather than co-ownership in a strict legal sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That a wife has an independent right to recover stridhan by filing a civil suit or by invoking any other independent remedy under the common law can be no ground to oust the special jurisdiction conferred upon the matrimonial court under Section 27 of the Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Based on the Supreme Court’s interpretation and consistent judicial practice, the following types of property fall within the scope of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Punjab and Haryana High Court clarified a useful three-part categorisation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Gold ornaments, given their significance in Indian matrimonial custom, are specifically noted as typically falling within Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act’s reach, even if they constitute stridhan in the strict sense, because they are “a valuable property and an addition to the joint assets of a family.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is where the most important recent judicial development on Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act comes in \u2014 one that directly affects how women’s lawyers must frame their stridhan claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Allahabad High Court held that proceedings under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be treated as independent or standalone proceedings to result in a decree. The Court concurred with the view that Section 27 is not a substantive right, but a discretionary provision enabling relief incidental to matrimonial proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Krishna Kumar Gupta v. Priti Gupta<\/em> (2025 SCC OnLine All 3190, decided on 27 May 2025), a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court set aside a Family Court order directing a husband to pay \u20b910,54,364 in lieu of returning stridhan articles. The Bench held that the return of stridhan has to be an issue determined at trial in a proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, not independently on a separate application made under Section 27.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Women seeking return of stridhan must bring up the issue during a divorce or other matrimonial proceeding. It cannot be treated as a standalone claim under Section 27. If stridhan has not been addressed in the divorce decree, the recourse may lie in other laws such as criminal proceedings or separate civil suits, but not a lone application under the Hindu Marriage Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The practical implication of this ruling is significant: a wife cannot approach the Family Court and file a petition exclusively invoking Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act to recover her stridhan, with no underlying divorce or matrimonial proceeding. The property recovery claim must be embedded within and adjudicated as part of the main matrimonial proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Based on the statutory text, Supreme Court guidance, and the 2025 Allahabad High Court ruling, the correct procedural framework for invoking Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act is as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The stridhan recovery claim under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act must be specifically pleaded and framed as a relief or issue within the main proceeding \u2014 typically the divorce petition (Section 13), judicial separation (Section 10), or restitution of conjugal rights petition (Section 9). This is done either through a specific prayer in the original petition or through an amendment to add the property-related relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Courts examining a Section 27 claim require specific details \u2014 a clear description of each item, its approximate value, when it was received, from whom, and the basis on which the party claims it falls within the marriage-time-gift category. Vague assertions that “jewellery and gifts worth lakhs were given” without specifics are consistently rejected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The claimant must demonstrate, through direct or circumstantial evidence, that the specific items are in the other party’s possession or control. This requires more than simply asserting that the items must be with the husband \u2014 courts expect evidence of entrustment and refusal to return. The bench questioned the Family Court’s reliance on photocopied jewellery receipts submitted by the ex-wife. There was no explanation as to why the secondary evidence was accepted, nor any direct proof that the man had custody of the jewellery in question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The property claim is framed as an issue before the Family Court and is examined alongside the other contested questions in the matrimonial proceeding. Documentary evidence \u2014 bills, receipts, photographs, wedding videos, witness testimony \u2014 is led during the evidence stage and subjected to cross-examination by the opposing party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the court is satisfied by the evidence, it passes a direction within the matrimonial decree itself \u2014 either ordering the return of specific items or awarding their monetary equivalent. Section 27 gives the court the right to pass a decree to include provisions in it with respect to any property presented at or about the time of marriage which may belong jointly to the parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the most powerful doctrinal contributions of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act is the “trustee theory” \u2014 the principle that when a husband or his family holds a woman’s stridhan, they do so not as owners but as trustees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As per Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, even if the property of a woman is in the custody of her husband or in-laws, pursuant to orders being passed by the court, the husband or in-laws shall be bound to return the possession of the property to the woman, being merely the trustees or custodians of such property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This principle has enormously practical consequences. It means:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Indian courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have time and again reiterated the sanctity of stridhan and underscored that it is not a shared property but belongs solely to the woman. Even her husband or in-laws do not have any legal claim over it. This is true irrespective of the duration of the marriage or the nature of the relationship between the woman and her family members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nThe “Jointly Belong” Controversy: Does Section 27 Cover Stridhan?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Earlier View: Stridhan Excluded<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Supreme Court’s Definitive Rejection of This View<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nWhat Property Falls Within Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Clearly Included<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
What Falls Outside Section 27<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\nThe Critical Procedural Limitation: Section 27 Is Incidental, Not Independent<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nHow Section 27 Must Be Invoked Correctly<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Step 1: Raise It Within Existing Matrimonial Proceedings<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Step 2: Provide Itemised, Specific Particulars<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Step 3: Establish Possession and Entrustment With the Other Party<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Step 4: Lead Evidence During Trial<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Step 5: Seek Specific Directions in the Decree<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nThe Trustee Theory: Why Husbands Cannot Claim Ownership Over Stridhan<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
![\"Role](\"https:\/\/quickdivorce.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Role-of-Section-27-of-Hindu-Marriage-Act-in-Stridhan-Recovery-img-1024x683.png\" "\\"\\"")