Stridhan:

As indicated by the name itself ‘Stridhan’ means that ‘Dhan of the ‘Stri’. Thus, it literally
means the woman’s property.

Stridhan according to Smritis:

Manu enumerates the six kinds of Stridhan:

(1) Gifts made before the nuptial fire;

(2) Gifts made at the bridal procession from the residence of her parents to that of her
husband;

(3) Gifts made in token of love;

(4) Gifts made by the father;

(5) Gifts made by the mother;

(6) Gifts made by the brother.

The first kind of Stridhan has been explained by Katyayana as adhyagni, or gift made before
the nuptial fire. The second kind of Stridhan has been explained by Katyayana as those made
through affection by her father-in-law and mother.

The third kind of Stridhan has been explained by Katyayana as those made through affection
by her father-in-law and mother- in-law (pritidatta) and those made at the time of her making
obeisance at the feet of the elders (padvandanika).

All the commentators, however, have agreed that the above enumeration by Manu was not
exhaustive. Vishnu added the following to that list:

(1) Gift made by a husband to his wife on supersession, that is, on the occasion of his taking
another wife (adhive danika).

(2) Gifts made subsequent to the marriage.

(3) Sulka or the gratuity for which a girl is given in marriage or the bride’s price.

(4) Gifts from sons and relations.

The second kind of Stridhan has been explained by Katyayana as those made after marriage
by the relatives of her parents and the husband (anwadheyaka).
Katyayana’s definition of adhyagni gifts before the (nuptial fire) and that of
adhyavahanika (gifts as the bridal possession), it appears, are wide enough to include gifts
from strangers prior to coverture.

But he expressly excludes from the category of Stridhan, gifts made by strangers
during coverture, as also property ac-quired by a woman during coverature by mechanical
arts, which he as, will be subject to the husband’s dominion. The words “husband’s
dominion” evidently indicated the gains of arts and gifts from strangers either during
maidenhood or during widow-hood were not excluded from being Stridhan. According to
him the rest is pronounced to be Stridhana.

Thus according to the texts, expression, “Stridhan” was not used in its etymological
sense of “female’s property” and its only gifts obtained by a woman from her relations and
her ornaments and apparel which constitute her stridhana and the only sorts of gifts from
strangers which come under that denomination are presents before the nuptial fire and those
made at the bridal pro-cession. Bur gifts did not obtain from strangers at any other time nor
do her acquisitions by labour and skill constitute her Stridhana.

Vijnaneshwar, the author of Mitaskhara, in his commentary says:

“That which was given by the father, by the mother, by the husband or by the brother;
and that which was presented by the maternal uncles and the rest at the time of wedding
before the nuptial fire; and a gift on a second marriage or gratuity on ac-count of
supersession; and, as indicated by the word adya (and the rest) property obtained by.

(1) Inheritance (2) Purchase,(3) Position, (4) Seizure, e.g., adverse possession, (5)
Finding,

Judicial trend towards Stridhan:

In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar , the Supreme Court observed that Pratibha Rani was
tormented and denied stridhana by her in-laws. Pratibha Rani's parents had fulfilled the
demands of her in-laws by giving gold ornaments, Rs 60,000 cash and other items to her
husband's family. Few days after marriage, her in-laws started harassing her for dowry and
kicked her out of the house along with her two minor children without providing any money
for their survival. She had lodged two complaints against her husband and in-laws under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The lower court favored her in the judgment but the High court reversed the
judgment. Later, the apex court gave the judgment in her favor. The Supreme Court said that
the joint holding of a stridhana property by husband does not constitute any co-ownership.
The Court further said that a woman can file a suit against her husband if he denies returning
stridhana property under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as well as under
Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Pratibha Rani case is the only remarkable
judgment which discusses the concept of stridhana and the applicability of Section 405 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In the case of Bhai Sher Jang Singh v. Smt. Virinder Kaur , Punjab & Haryana High
Court stated that if a woman claims property, ornaments, money, etc. which were given to her
at the time of marriage, then the husband and his family members are bound to return back
such property. If they deny to return back the property, then they will have to face strict
punishment. The Court held that Bhai Sher Jang Singh and his family had committed an
offense under Section 406 for committing criminal breach of trust as they had dishonestly
misappropriated the ornaments which were the stridhana that Virinder had given to her
husband for safe-keeping.

In Santosh v. Saarswathibai , the ambit of Section 14(1) of HSA was expanded to

include not only the land which is in the possession of the Hindu female, but also the land
over which she has the right to possess.

Conclusion:

The enactment of the Hindu Succession Act is a welcome step towards strengthening
the property rights of Hindu women. As a part of this Act, women are given certain privileges
that have been denying them for decades. It is also a colossal step in the defense of women's
rights, as it has abolished a woman's disability to gain and keep land as its absolute owner.
Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has definitely been a safety guard for the
women especially the Hindu women. It has provided women with those rights, which were
denied to her for centuries.
 This section removes the disability of a female to acquire and hold property as an
absolute owner and to convert any estate already held by a woman on the date of
commencement of this act as a limited owner, into an absolute estate. In case of her death
intestate, she becomes a fresh stock of descent and the property devolves by succession on
her own heirs.