Durban - The marriage lasted a short two weeks - but the legal battle over jewellery given by the groom and his family to the bride went on for 10 years, only ending this month with a high court order that the 29 items, worth more than R350 000, finally be returned.
Because of the passage of time, Durban High Court Judge Jacqui Henriques ruled that if the jewellery, handed over 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 value of it in cash.
The 18-year-old bride from Durban, and the groom, who was in his thirties and 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 same 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 then 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 in her recent judgment, was whether such jewellery should be returned on divorce "in terms of the philosophy, traditions and customs of Hanafi school of Islamic law, alternatively, because they are family heirlooms".
The judge said according to evidence, 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."
It was part of the tradition to present jewellery to a prospective bride. In this case, some of it had been bought over the years, given to the family as gifts and some was family heirlooms.
The groom's family argued that it had been given to the bride "on the basis that she was willing to become his wife", and she was only to be the custodian, never the owner of it, because she would hand it down to her children.
But when she left she took the jewellery with her, saying that in terms of her customs she did not have to give it back.
A mediator testified that he had met the bride's parents, who were "emotional and upset and 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 maulana, who testified during the trial that both families belonged to the Hanafi School, which states that the wife was the custodian, not the owner, of the jewellery, and it should be returned.
The father of the bride disputed giving any undertakings and said he wanted legal opinion from the Muslim Judicial Council because the maulana was biased.
Judge Henriques said while she had some sympathy for him "because he carries a huge amount of guilt for his daughter's failed marriage", it was apparent 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. He wanted to lay the blame solely at the door of the groom's family," she said.
"I am satisfied the jewellery was handed over (to the bride) and the family are entitled to it back."
The Mercury