At the outset, we may notice as to what is ‘Streedhana’
In Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada [(1997) 2 SCC
397], the meaning of Stridhana has been taken from Mayne’s Hindu Law &
Usage (13th
Edn.). It was opined:

“9. A woman’s power of disposal, independent
of her husband’s control, is not confined to
saudayika but extends to other properties as well.
Devala says: “A woman’s maintenance (vritti),
ornaments, perquisites (sulka), gains (labha), are
her stridhana. She herself has the exclusive right to
enjoy it. Her husband has no right to use it except
in distress....” In N.R. Raghavachariar’s Hindu
Law — Principles and Precedents, (8th Edn.)
edited by Prof. S. Venkataraman, one of the
renowned Professors of Hindu Law para 468 deals
with “Definition of Stridhana”. In para 469 dealing
with “Sources of acquisition” it is stated that the
sources of acquisition of property in a woman’s
possession are: gifts before marriage, wedding
gifts, gifts subsequent to marriage etc. Para 470
deals with “Gifts to a maiden”. Para 471 deals with
“Wedding gifts” and it is stated therein that
properties gifted at the time of marriage to the
bride, whether by relations or strangers, either
Adhiyagni or Adhyavahanika, are the bride’s
stridhana. In para 481 at page 426, it is stated that
ornaments presented to the bride by her husband or
father constitute her Stridhana property. In para
487 dealing with “powers during coverture” it is
stated that saudayika meaning the gift of
affectionate kindred, includes both Yautaka or
gifts received at the time of marriage as well as its
negative Ayautaka. In respect of such property,
whether given by gift or will she is the absolute
owner and can deal with it in any way she likes.
She may spend, sell or give it away at her own
pleasure.
10. It is thus clear that the properties gifted to
her before the marriage, at the time of marriage or
at the time of giving farewell or thereafter are her
stridhana properties. It is her absolute property
with all rights to dispose at her own pleasure. He
has no control over her stridhana property.
Husband may use it during the time of his distress
but nonetheless he has a moral obligation to restore
the same or its value to his wife. Therefore,
stridhana property does not become a joint
property of the wife and the husband and the
husband has no title or independent dominion over
the property as owner thereof.”
It was furthermore held:
“…The expression “entrustment” carries with it
the implication that the person handing over any
property or on whose behalf that property is
handed over to another, continues to be its owner.
Entrustment is not necessarily a term of law. It
may have different implications in different
contexts. In its most general significance, all its
imports is handing over the possession for some
purpose which may not imply the conferment of
any proprietary right therein. The ownership or
beneficial interest in the property in respect of
which criminal breach of trust is alleged to have
been committed, must be in some person other
than the accused and the latter must hold it on
account of some person or in some way for his
benefit….”