Stridhan ( Landmark Judgement )

The above-mentioned case established the precedent that the husband is legally bound to restore his wife’s stridhan to its original state or is bound to repay her the full value of the same in the event of any damages caused to her stridhan.

The Respondent-wife had filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the DV Act”) along with a complaint under Section 498A IPC. The Respondent-wife had also filed a maintenance petition U/S 125 Criminal Procedure Code wherein she had claimed return of her stridhan and a direction to her husband prohibiting him from committing any act of domestic violence on her.

The Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass an order in favour of the Respondent-wife.

Being aggrieved by the order the Petitioner-husband filed an appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge. The Ld Sessions Judge upheld the trial court’s order and directed the Petitioner-Husband to abide by the said order. Subsequent to the same, the Petitioner-Husband filed his above-mentioned petition to challenge the order passed by the Ld. Sessions Court.

It was argued by the Petitioner-Husband’s lawyer that an order U/S.19(8) of the DV Act giving directions to the husband to return the stridhan can only be ordered if there is proof of domestic violence. In the present case, the said proof was missing. The lawyer for the Petitioner-Husband further argued that the Respondent-wife had already taken away her stridhan when she left the matrimonial home.

The advocate appearing for the Respondent-Wife submitted that the trial Court had called for a domestic violence report from the Protection Officer. The Protection Officer’s report coupled with the evidence by the Respondent-Wife was grounds enough to prove that the Respondent-Wife was subjected to domestic violence. It further established that the stridhan of the Respondent-Wife was retained by the Petitioner-Husband and hence there is no reason to interfere with the order of the trial court which was upheld by the Ld. Sessions Court.

The Hon’ble Tripura High Court referred to judgment of Apex court in Krishna Bhattacharjee Vrs. Sarathi Choudhury and Reshmi Kumar(Smt) V. Mahesh Kumar Bhada,Therefore, taking a page out of the said set precedents, the Hon’ble Tripura High Court held that, the Respondent-wife had given corroborating and substantiating evidence at the trial Court which supported her submissions of constant mental and physical harassment and abuse at the hands of the Petitioner-Husband. Hence, in the light of the same, the order of the trial court was rightfully passed and was rightfully upheld by the Ld. Sessions Court. Considering the satisfaction of the definition of domestic violence and proof thereof, the Hon’ble Court saw no reason to interfere with the said judgement and dismissed the Petition of the Petitioner-Husband.