In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that the return of ‘streedhan’ must be determined within the framework of proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and not through a separate application filed under Section 27 of the Act.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Avnish Saxena observed:
“Return of ‘streedhan’ 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.”
This ruling came in the case of Krishna Kumar Gupta v. Priti Gupta, where the Family Court had earlier directed the husband to pay ₹10,54,364 in lieu of returning the wife’s streedhan articles. The marriage between the parties was legally dissolved on May 1, 2023. Before that, the wife had also been granted interim maintenance, receiving a total of ₹7 lakhs from the husband.
The appellant-husband challenged the Family Court’s order, contending that Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be used as a separate legal avenue for recovering property. He relied on a 2017 ruling of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Babita @ Gayatri v. Mod Prasad @ Pintu, where it was stated:
“Section 27 is not to be treated as a separate and independent matrimonial proceeding. It is intended to avoid multiplicity of litigation and must be invoked within the main proceeding under Sections 9 to 13-B of the Act.”
Read also:- Allahabad High Court: CrPC (UP Amendment) Act 2018 Impliedly Repealed After BNSS 2023 Enactment
The appellant also highlighted that the Family Court admitted photocopies of jewellery receipts submitted by the wife without proper justification or valid secondary evidence. The High Court pointed out that such documents:
“Can only be proved by the maker or someone who witnessed its creation and receipt. Inference of admission from non-objection is not sufficient proof.”
Read also:- MP High Court: Assaulting Wife for Resisting Unnatural Sex Qualifies as Cruelty Under IPC Section 498A
Furthermore, the Court noted that the wife had admitted during cross-examination that the husband was not present at the location on the day of the alleged incident, when she claimed he forcibly took her jewellery and threw her out. Despite this, the Family Court presumed the allegations to be true without proper judicial scrutiny.
“The Family Court failed to consider the wife's own statement that the husband was not present during the alleged incident on 24th November 2014,” the Court observed.
The High Court also emphasized that Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act allows for maintenance after divorce, while Section 27 is restricted to joint property and must be invoked only during the main trial, not in a separate proceeding. As the original divorce judgment dated May 1, 2023 did not mention any property order, the Family Court’s judgment lacked jurisdiction.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the ₹10.54 lakh direction. It acknowledged that the wife had already received ₹7 lakhs and another ₹2.10 lakhs through partial execution. The Court ruled that these amounts may be adjusted toward her maintenance claims.
“Appellant having succeeded in the appeal, the execution case must be dropped as the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction,” the Court directed.
Case Title: Krishna Kumar Gupta v. Priti Gupta [FIRST APPEAL No. - 1116 of 2024]
