Chhattisgarh HC Affirms Women’s Right to Stridhan, Orders Return of 28 Tolas Gold After 26 Years | Raipur News

RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court delivered a significant verdict in a case concerning the return of ‘Stridhan‘ (a woman’s property), affirming a married woman’s absolute right over it, even if it is in the custody of her husband and in-laws.
The High Court Single Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, hearing an appeal filed by a woman (now 53), directed the husband (now 56) to return 28 tolas (approximately 326.56 grams) of gold and pay a fine of Rs 10,000 within two months. The court warned that failure to comply with the order would result in the husband serving three months of simple imprisonment.
The court noted that since the original complaint was filed on September 17, 1998, more than 26 years elapsed. Considering the possibility that both parties may have remarried and settled in their respective lives, the court deemed a jail sentence to be of no practical purpose. Section 406 of the IPC stipulates a maximum sentence of three years or a fine, or both, but does not prescribe a minimum sentence, the court observed.
The case involves a Raipur woman, whose marriage with a Bhilai resident took place on November 3, 1995, at Kundan Palace, Raipur. Following the marriage, she resided at her matrimonial home. However, she alleged that her husband and other family members subjected her to harassment and cruelty, leaving her no option but to leave the house at midnight on March 19, 1996. In her distressed state, she was compelled to leave behind her ‘Stridhan,’ including jewellery, gold, silver, and other valuables.
Subsequently, the aggrieved wife filed a complaint against her husband at the Mahila Thana (women’s police station) in Raipur, citing offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police registered a case and initiated an investigation.
During the investigation, on December 7, 1997, the husband sent a legal notice to his wife. Conversely, the wife sent a notice to her husband on May 30, 1998, demanding the return of her ‘Stridhan,’ the list of which was submitted to the Mahila Thana, Raipur.
The wife eventually filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in the court. After hearing both parties, the Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, acquitted the husband. This acquittal prompted the wife to file an appeal in the High Court.
In the appeal, it was argued that ‘Stridhan’ remains the property of the woman, and the offence of criminal breach of trust continues as long as it is not returned. The appellant’s counsel asserted that the trial court overlooked a 2003 judgment by the Family Court, Secunderabad, which established the wife’s entrustment of the articles to her husband.
The High Court, after hearing all the parties, observed in its order, “It is quite clear that the gold ornaments were worn by the appellant at the time of marriage, and the receipts were also produced before the trial court. The appellant left her matrimonial home on March 19, 1996, under dire circumstances at midnight; therefore, it was impossible for her to carry gold and silver ornaments in such a terrifying situation.”
The court further stated that these circumstances proved that the gold remained with the husband.
Consequently, the High Court overturned the husband’s acquittal and found him guilty under Section 405 of the IPC. The court ordered him to return 28 tolas of gold to his wife and pay a fine of Rs 10,000 within two months, failing which he would have to undergo three months of simple imprisonment.