The Tripura high court recently comprising of a bench of Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay observed that the husband has a moral and legal obligation to restore the Stridhan or its value to his wife. (Sri Dipak Biswas and Ors v. Smt. Aditi Kar (Biswas) and Ors)
The bench noted that law is very clear on this point. Section 19 of the DV Act clearly provides that the Magistrate while disposing of an application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act can pass an order under Sub Section (1) of Section 19 or any other order under Sub Section (2) to Sub Section (8) of Section 19 of the Act.
Facts of the Case
The Respondent-wife had filed an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, a complaint under Section 498A IPC and also maintenance petition U/S 125 Cr. P.C. She claimed in a petition for return of her stridhan and a direction to her husband prohibiting him from committing any act of domestic violence on her. The Court passed an order in favor of the wife. Aggrieved by the order the husband filed an appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge who affirmed the trial court order.
Thus the present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Sessions Judge.
Contention of the Parties
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that an order under Sub Section (8) of Section 19 of the DV Act directing the husband to return Stridhan to the aggrieved wife can be passed only when it is proved that domestic violence has taken place. It was argued by Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned Sr. Advocate that in the given case there is no proof of commission of domestic violence and in absence of such proof, order directing the husband to return stridhan to the wife is completely erroneous. It was also argued by learned counsel of the petitioner that the jewellery which the wife got as her bridal gifts during marriage were taken away by her while she left her matrimonial home and in such circumstances the husband cannot be asked to return the same to his wife. Learned counsel therefore, urged the Court to allow the criminal revision petition.
Counsel appearing for the respondent wife on the other hand submits that the trial Court called for a domestic violence report from the Protection Officer and such report along with the evidence adduced by the wife clearly proved that the wife was subjected to domestic violence and her stridhan was retained by her husband while she was ousted from her matrimonial home. According to Mr. Acharjee, there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below which are based on sound evidence.
With regard to return of stridhan to the respondent wife it was submitted by learned counsel that legally the husband has no right over the stridhan of his wife. He can at best be regarded as the custodian of the stridhan of his wife and in no point of time he can claim any interest in such property of his wife.
It was further argued by Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel that if the husband invest the stridhan of his wife for any purpose of his own, he would be liable to prosecution for criminal breach of trust.
Courts observation & Judgment
The bench noted, “As discussed, it is submitted by learned counsel of the petitioner that without proof of the commission of domestic violence, no order under Section 19 of the DV Act including the order for returning the stridhan to the possession of the aggrieved person can be made. Law is very clear on this point. Section 19 of the DV Act clearly provides that the Magistrate while disposing an application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act can pass an order under Sub Section (1) of Section 19 or any other order under Sub Section (2) to Sub Section (8) of Section 19 of the Act.”
The Court referred to the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Krishna Bhattacharjee Vrs. Sarathi Choudhury and another, wherein the following observations were made, “a pure and simple entrustment of stridhan without creating any rights in the husband excepting putting the articles in his possession does not entitle him to use the same to the detriment of his wife without her consent. The husband has no justification for not returning the said articles as and when demanded by the wife nor can he burden her with losses of business by using the said property which was never intended by her while entrusting possession of stridhan. On the allegations in the complaint, the husband is no more and no less than a pure and simple custodian acting on behalf of his wife, and if he diverts the entrusted property elsewhere or for different purposes, he takes a clear risk of prosecution under Section 406 of the IPC. On a parity of reasoning, it is manifest that the husband, being only a custodian of the stridhan of his wife, cannot be said to be in joint possession thereof and thus acquire a joint interest in the property.”
The Court also made reference to judgment of Apex court in Reshmi Kumar(Smt) V. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, wherein the following observations were made, “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.”
The bench dismissing the petition noted, “In view of what has been discussed above, the allegation against the petitioner that he committed domestic violence within the meaning of Section 3 of the DV Act on his respondent wife has been proved and the Courts below correctly arrived at the finding that the petitioner committed domestic violence on his respondent wife. With regard to the correctness of the direction of the Courts below to return stridhan to the possession of the respondent wife, it can be safely held that the Courts below rightly directed the petitioner to return the stridhan including the jewellery items to his respondent wife. I find no reason to interfere with the said direction of the Courts below. In the result, the petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to restore the said stridhan in terms of the impugned order or pay its value to the respondent wife within a period of two months from today.”
Read Judgment;
SOURCE ;.latestlaws.com
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments