Introduction:

In the case of Krishna Kumar Gupta v. Priti Gupta [First Appeal No. – 1116 of 2024], the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Avnish Saxena, addressed the issue of whether the return of ‘stree dhan’ can be adjudicated through a separate application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, post the dissolution of marriage. The Family Court had previously directed the appellant-husband to pay ₹10,54,364/- to the respondent-wife instead of returning ‘stree dhan’ articles. The High Court set aside this order, emphasising that such matters must be resolved within the main matrimonial proceedings and not through independent applications.

Arguments:

Appellant-Husband’s Arguments:

The counsel for the appellant contended that Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act permits the court to make provisions regarding the disposal of property presented at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both spouses. They argued that this provision does not authorise the court to entertain an independent application concerning ‘stree dhan’ after the dissolution of marriage. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Babita @ Gayatri v. Mod Prasad @ Pintu, where it was held that Section 27 does not empower the court to entertain an independent application without any pending matrimonial proceedings.

Respondent-Wife’s Arguments:

The respondent’s counsel argued that the appellant had already been unsuccessful in a review against the impugned order and was now pursuing an appeal, which was impermissible. They also stated that the wife was pursuing execution proceedings. Regarding the FIR against the appellant alleging he forcibly took her jewellery, the court observed that there were 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.

Court’s Judgment:

The High Court emphasised that Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act allows the court to make provisions regarding property presented at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both spouses, within the decree of matrimonial proceedings. The court noted 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. Therefore, the subsequent order directing the appellant to pay ₹10,54,364/- instead of ‘stree dhan’ was set aside. The court observed that since the appellant had succeeded in the appeal, the execution proceedings were dropped automatically.