Wife Absolute Owner Of 'Streedhan'; Husband May Use But Has Obligation To Restore It: Allahabad HC Quashes 406 IPC Case Against Wife

A bench of Justice Chawan Prakash observed that properties given to a woman before, at the time of, or after marriage constitute her 'streedhan' and do not become the joint property of the husband and wife.

Importantly, the Court clarified that a wife has all rights to dispose of this property at her own pleasure. It added that while a husband may use it during times of distress, he has a moral obligation to restore the property or its value, and neither he nor other in-laws have any control over the 'streedhan'.

The single judge was dealing with an application filed by Anamika Tiwari and four others seeking quashing of a summoning order and the entire proceedings of a complaint case u/s Sections 323, 504, 406 IPC.

Briefly put, it was the case of the applicant-wife that she got married to the opposite party-husband in April 2012 where her family had provided sufficient dowry.

However, she later lodged an FIR against her husband and his family members under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act over alleged demands for additional dowry.

A charge sheet in this matter was submitted in December 2018. Subsequently, in May 2022, a court directed the husband to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 4,000 to the wife and Rs 1,000 to her son.

Following this, the husband filed a complaint alleging that his wife and the other applicants entered his house in September 2018 and took away Rs 6,400 in cash, ornaments worth approximately Rs 1,50,000, and certain household articles.

Based on this complaint and statements from witnesses, the Magistrate summoned the wife and her family members to face trial. Challenging the same, she had moved the HC.

At the outset, the bench examined Sections 405 and 406 IPC to note that if any property is entrusted to someone and that person dishonestly misappropriates or converts the same to his own use, then an offence of criminal breach of trust is made out.

The Court, however, noted that since the wife is the absolute owner of her 'streedhan', no offence under Section 406 IPC would be made out against the applicant for allegedly taking away her ornaments.

So far as the remaining Sections 323, 504 against the other applicants were concerned, the Court found the allegations to be general in nature.

The bench also remarked that the impugned order had been passed in a very casual manner, as the Magistrate had not taken into consideration the definition of Criminal Breach of Trust.

Thus, the summoning order was set aside, and the entire proceedings against the wife and her relatives were quashed.