A Legal Analysis of the Supreme Court Verdict in Rousanara Begum v. S.K. Salahuddin

 

Read full judgment here: Click here

1.0 Introduction: A Landmark Verdict on Matrimonial Property Rights

The Supreme Court of India's decision in Rousanara Begum v. S.K. Salahuddin, delivered on December 20, 2023, represents a significant milestone in the jurisprudence concerning the property rights of divorced Muslim women. Arising from a decade-long legal battle, the verdict addresses deep-seated questions about the nature of gifts given at the time of marriage and clarifies the judicial approach required for interpreting social welfare legislation. It stands as a crucial reaffirmation of economic justice for women navigating the complexities of divorce.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Divorced Muslim Woman Entitled To Recover Gifts Given by her father To her Husband At the time of Marriage

 It is difficult to agree with the reasoning of the High Court. The primary basis for not giving the amount and gold in question to the Appellant, as it appears from the perusal of the judgment, was the apparent contradiction between the statement of the Kazi i.e. marriage Registrar and the father of the Appellant. The former stated in evidence that the entry recording the amount and gold being given to the husband was erroneously done so and it should have been that the said amount(s) were only given without specifying, to whom, the father of the Appellant on the other hand stated that he had given the amount(s) in question to the Respondent. The High Court observed that since the father was directly responsible for giving the said amount(s), it would be prudent to accept his version of events. What, apparently, the High Court lost sight of is the end result of the proceedings in which the said statement of the father was given. Those proceedings were concerned with Section 498A-Indian Penal Code and Section(s) 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and despite such a direct statement by the father of the Appellant the learned Trial Court seized of the matter acquitted the Respondent, a conclusion which appears to have attained finality. Then, it cannot be said, in our view, that the evidentiary value of that statement is either equal to or greater than the statement of the marriage registrar. The High Court records 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. When that is the case, we are at a loss to understand why his statement in entirety should not be accepted. Mere allegation as to his conduct being suspicious on account of overwriting in the marriage register is not sufficient to discard his testimony.

{Para 8}

9. This case presents the possibility of two interpretations and whereas it is a settled rule that this Court under its plenary, Article 136 jurisdiction does not interfere with the findings of the High Court simply because there are two views possible, this case, in our considered view, 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. The Constitution of India prescribes an aspiration for all, i.e. equality which is, obviously, yet to be achieved. Courts, in doing their bit to this end must ground their reasoning in social justice adjudication. To put it in context, the scope and object of 1986 Act is concerned with securing the dignity and financial protection of a Muslim women post her divorce which aligns with the rights of a women Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The construction of this Act, therefore, must keep at the forefront equality, dignity and autonomy and must be done in the light of lived experiences of women where particularly in smaller towns and rural areas, inherent patriarchal discrimination is still the order of the day.

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 5164 of 2025 

Decided On: 02.12.2025

Rousanara Begum Vs. S.K. Salahuddin and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1375, MANU/SC/1611/2025.

Print Page

Uniformity in Succession, Clarity in Service: Key Takeaways from the Repealing & Amending Bill, 2025

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I5Izpv0rytwtj3WadSL_BZ--oYxI5dZh/view?usp=sharing 

 Repealing & Amending Bill, 2025

Why this Bill matters

The Repealing and Amending Bill, 2025 (Bill No. 193 of 2025, as introduced in Lok Sabha) is a periodic “clean-up” measure: it repeals enactments that have ceased to be in force/are obsolete and corrects selected formal defects through limited amendments.​

Operationally, it (i) repeals enactments listed in the First Schedule, (ii) amends enactments listed in the Second Schedule, and (iii) carries a standard savings clause to protect past acts, accrued rights/liabilities, and pending proceedings from being disturbed by repeal.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Arrest Under S. 35(6) of BNSS Must Be Based On Fresh Material, Not On Grounds In S.35(3) Notice

 Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023 lays down the procedure to be followed in case of non-compliance with the notice issued by the Investigating Agency Under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023. Non-compliance with a notice does not ipso facto mandate arrest, as there lies a discretion with the Investigating Agency, which must be of the opinion that the arrest of the concerned person is necessary for the purpose of investigation. In other words, failure to comply with the notice does not lead to automatic arrest. Rather, it is the last resort available to the Investigating Agency, after due exercise of discretion regarding the necessity of arrest. {Para 23}

27. We have already clarified the position qua Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023 in our earlier order dated 16.07.2025 wherein, it has been stated that even assuming that the person to whom a notice Under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 has been issued, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, an arrest is not a matter of course.

28. We have also clarified, on the earlier occasion, that the procedure contained in Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023 has been introduced on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. These inbuilt safeguards are required to be complied with by the police officer, in letter and spirit.

29. From a conspectus of the above, it is amply clear that even if the conditions mentioned Under Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023 are in existence, there can be no mandatory arrest, as a police officer still may or may not decide to do so.

30. While making an arrest Under Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023, after the stage of issuing a notice seeking presence Under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, the circumstances and factors that were in existence at the time of issuing the said notice shall not be taken into consideration by a police officer while making an arrest subsequently. In other words, for effecting an arrest Under Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023, it must be based upon materials and factors which were not available with the police officer at the time of issuing a notice Under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023. Therefore, the power of arrest Under Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023 is to be exercised rather sparingly, only under circumstances as aforementioned.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MA No. 2034 of 2022 in MA No. 1849 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and MA No. 2035 of 2022 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021

Decided On: 15.01.2026

Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Citation:  2026 INSC 115, MANU/SC/0119/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page