THE MARRIAGE lasted just two weeks – but the legal battle over jewellery given by the groom and his family to the bride went on for 10 years, ending this month with a high court order that the 29 items, worth more than R350 000, finally be returned.
Durban High Court Judge Jacqui Henriques ruled that if the jewellery, given at the engagement party, pre-wedding functions and wedding ceremony, was no longer in the possession of the bride’s family, they must pay the cash value.
The 18-year-old bride, from Durban, and the groom, who was in his thirties, from Cape Town, were married in terms of traditions of the Hanafi School of Islamic Law on November 26, 2006. She left the marital home on December 12 that year and returned to her parents, the marriage never being consummated.
They were divorced by means of a talaq in April 2008.
The groom and his family sued for breach of marriage contract and for the return of the jewellery given in contemplation of marriage.
At the heart of the matter, Judge Henriques said, was whether such jewellery should be returned on divorce “in terms of the philosophy, traditions and customs of the Hanafi School of Islamic law, alternatively, because they are family heirlooms”.
The judge said the marriage was concluded with the consent of both parties and their families, but things quickly soured. “Apparently she refused to be intimate and she was openly rude, aggressive, dismissive and unco-operative towards him and his family.”
Some of the jewellery had been bought over the years, some given to the family and some pieces were family heirlooms. The groom’s family said the jewellery had been given to the bride “on the basis that she was willing to become his wife” and she was to be the custodian, never the owner, of it, as she would hand it down to her children.
A mediator in the matter said he had met with the bride’s parents, who “blamed themselves for forcing her into the marriage”. They had promised to return the jewellery but did not. The groom’s family sought the intervention of a moulana, who testified that both families belonged to the Hanafi School, which stated that the wife was the custodian, not the owner. The bride’s father said he wanted legal opinion from the Muslim Judicial Council as the moulana was biased.
Judge Henriques said while she had sympathy for him as “he carries a huge amount of guilt for his daughter’s failed marriage”, it was apparent that he harboured anger towards the groom and his family.
“He would not take any responsibility for his role in the arranged marriage and his failure to stop the marriage even though he was aware the couple were not happy,” she said. “I am satisfied the jewellery was handed over (to the bride) and the family are entitled to it back.”