The issue of zakāt on personal gold and silver jewelry worn by women is a well-known area of scholarly disagreement. The Hanafi school holds that zakāt is obligatory on all gold and silver once it reaches the niṣāb, regardless of whether it is used as jewelry or kept as savings. The majority of scholars from the Maliki, Shāfiʿi, and Hanbali schools hold that jewelry kept for personal use and adornment is exempt from zakāt, provided it is not intended for trade or wealth accumulation.

The evidence cited by those who exempt personal jewelry includes the understanding that such jewelry is part of normal personal belongings rather than growing wealth. The Prophet ﷺ said regarding charity: “There is no zakāt on a Muslim regarding his slave or his horse.” (Bukhari and Muslim). Scholars used this and similar evidence to establish that items kept for personal use are generally not zakatable.

However, the majority of scholars added an important condition: the jewelry must remain within the bounds of customary personal use. If the amount becomes excessive according to social norms and resembles stored wealth rather than ordinary adornment, then zakāt may become due according to many jurists even within the majority view.

The determination of “excess” does not have a precise fixed weight defined in classical fiqh texts. Rather, it is judged by local custom (ʿurf) and what is considered normal for personal adornment within a particular society. In many cultures, especially in South Asian communities, it is common for brides to receive significant amounts of gold jewelry at marriage, and such amounts may still be considered customary adornment even if not worn daily. The fact that some pieces are worn only on special occasions does not automatically transform them into hoarded wealth.

In your case, if the jewelry was genuinely given for adornment and remains intended for personal use, even if worn occasionally, then, according to the majority of scholars, zakāt would not be required on it. The amount itself does not automatically make it “excess,” particularly in cultures where wedding jewelry sets are traditionally substantial.

However, if part of the jewelry is clearly kept only as stored wealth and not realistically intended for personal adornment, some scholars would consider zakāt due on that portion. In such a case, zakāt would be calculated based on the current value of that specific gold.

Because of the difference of opinion, many scholars recommend paying zakāt on gold jewelry as a precaution, especially when the amount is significant. This approach follows the Hanafi position and removes any doubt. If one chooses to follow the majority view and not pay zakāt on jewelry genuinely intended for personal use, that position is also well-established and valid.

Therefore, if your wife’s jewelry was given and intended for personal adornment, even if worn only occasionally, then according to the majority opinion, zakāt is not obligatory. If you wish to take the more precautionary approach and pay zakāt on the gold annually according to its current value, that would be a virtuous and safe course.