Return Of 'Stridhan' Must Be Determined In Proceedings Under Hindu Marriage Act, Not On Separate Application U/S 27: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that distribution of properties of the parties, including return of “stree dhan”, must be determined in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and not upon separate application being made under Section 27 of the Act.

The bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Avnish Saxena held, “return of 'stree dhan' has to be an issue, to be determined at trial in a proceeding under the Act and not independently on application made under section 27.”

The Family Court had directed the appellant-husband to pay Rs.10,54,364/- in lieu of returning 'stree dhan' articles to the respondent-wife. The marriage between the parties was subsequently dissolved on 1^st May, 2023. In the application for interim maintenance by the wife, the husband had paid a total of Rs. 7 lakhs.

Counsel for appellant husband argued that the provision for distribution of properties owned by the parties could only be made in the divorce decree and not separately and there was no such direction in the divorce decree, even regarding the stree dhan. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Babita @ Gyatri V/s ModPrasad @ Pintu, where it was held that

“When any matrimonial proceeding under the Act is not decided between the parties, the provision does not clothe the Court with jurisdiction to entertain an independent application under Section 27 of the Act without there being any further proceeding under the Act as contemplated in Section 9 to 13 and 13-A and 13-B of the Act, 1955. The provision has been made with an intent to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to entitle the wife to move application for return of Streedhan properties in the same proceedings, in which a matrimonial dispute has been brought to the Court for adjudication.”

Counsel for respondent, inter alia, pleaded that the appellant had been unsuccessful in the review against the impugned order, and is now perusing the appeal which is impermissible. It was also stated the wife is pursuing execution proceedings.

Regarding the FIR against appellant alleging he forcibly took her jewellery, the Court observed that there only allegations of a conspiracy and the wife, in her cross-examination, had already stated that the appellant was not present on the date of the alleged incident. The Court further observed that the photocopies of the receipts of the jewellery given by the wife's parents to her could not reasonably be proved by the husband as he had neither seen the original receipts nor was a witness to the transaction.

“A document can only be proved by the maker of it. It may also be proved by someone receiving an original document, who testifies that he witnessed the maker of it, making it and handing it over to the witness,” observed the Court on Family Court admitting the photocopies of the jewellery bills as secondary evidence.

The Court observed that the Family Court had accepted the allegations against the husband without addressing the statement by the wife that the husband was not present at the scene at the time of the alleged incident.

Agreeing with the Chhattisgarh High Court, the Court held,

“section 25 allows for a spouse to, subsequent to decree for dissolution of marriage, apply for direction on maintenance, either by monthly or gross sum. Section 27 empowers the Court passing decree to include provisions in it with respect to any property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to the parties. We see that there was no direction in respect of property, joint or otherwise, made in the judgment and decree dated 1st May, 2023 dissolving the marriage.”

Accordingly, the judgment directing appellant to pay Rs.10,54,364/- in lieu of stree dhan was set aside. Observing that the wife had received and recovered an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs as interim maintenance and Rs. 2,10,000/- by part execution, the Court held that since the appellant had succeeded in appeal, the execution proceedings were dropped automatically.

Case Title: Krishna Kumar Gupta v. Priti Gupta [FIRST APPEAL No. - 1116 of 2024]

Click Here To Read/Download Order