P.K. Pakrichi vs P.K. Kunhacha

The plaintiff claims to recover one-half of the property which was given to the defendant''s husband under Exhibit I, by the plaintiff''s mother and

the plaintiff. The ground on which the plaintiff''s title is based is that prior to the death of the defendant''s husband he divorced her and that

according to the law by which the parties are governed the gift became void in consequence of the divorce. The contention apparently is that the

property then reverted to the donors, and as they held it as the heirs of the plaintiff''s father, the plaintiff and the defendant who is her sister, are

entitled to it in equal shares. The document says that the property is given to the donee as stridhanam though that word means woman''s property

and the gift was to a man. It would appear that amongst the Marumakkatayam Moplas of Malabar gifts are often made to the husband of a girl

given in marriage apparently as a contribution towards the maintenance of the girl and her future children. It was held in Mariyam v. Abdulla

Second Appeal No. 1746 of 1895 (unreported) that such a gift became void on the death or divorce of the girl. Now according to

Marumakkatayam Law the tarwad is bound to maintain the women of the tarwad even after their marriage, and, if property is given to a husband

for the support of his wife it stands to reason that, when he divorces her he should give back the property to the donor. The parties in this case are

governed by the Muhammadan Law, not by the Marumakkatayam Law. A girl when married passes over to her husband''s family under the

Muhammadan Law.

There is no obligation on the members of her natural family to maintain her after her marriage, even if she is divorced. There is no reason

therefore for presuming that a rule of Construction applicable to a stridhanam gift to a husband where the parties are governed by the

Marumakkatayam Law is applicable to such an instrument where the parties are governed by the Muhammadan Law. The plaintiff did not allege

any usage amongst Moplas governed by the Muhammadan Law according to which the gift would become void on the defendant''s divorce. There

is nothing in Exhibit I itself restricting the interest of the donee in any manner. If the gift was really intended for the benefit of the defendant herself

and not her husband, the plaintiff would still have no title.

No doubt it appears that a stridhanam gift in favour of the plaintiff''s husband was held to convey only a limited estate to him. But the document

is not before us and we do not know what its terms were. The result is that we must hold that the plaintiff has not succeeded in proving her title.

We reverse the decrees of the Courts below and dismiss the suit The parties will bear each her own coats throughout.