The Supreme Court of India has quashed proceedings against former in-laws under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in a case concerning the alleged non-return of stridhan (a woman’s property). The Division Bench, comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, reaffirmed the consistent legal position that a woman has exclusive rights over her stridhan, as highlighted in the recent case of Mala Kar v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1049.
Background of the CaseThe case originated from a complaint filed by the father of the complainant (referred to as the 2nd Respondent) against his daughter’s former in-laws, alleging that they had not returned gold ornaments and other articles given as stridhan during her marriage in 1999. After nearly 16 years of marriage, the complainant’s daughter sought a divorce in the United States in 2015, which was granted by mutual consent in 2016. The Separation Agreement settled all possessions, and she remarried in 2018.Despite this, the complainant lodged an FIR in January 2021, accusing the former in-laws of withholding the stridhan. The appellants denied the allegations, arguing that the complaint was intended to harass them. After the police filed a final report, the appellants sought to quash the proceedings, but the Telangana High Court found the charges prima facie triable.Supreme Court’s AssessmentThe Supreme Court focused on whether the complainant had the legal standing (locus) to file the FIR and whether the delay in filing rendered the case non-maintainable. The Court reiterated the legal principle that stridhan remains the sole property of the woman, with neither the husband nor the father having any right over it if the woman is alive and capable of making decisions.The Court noted the significant time lapse—over 20 years since the marriage and five years after the divorce—and emphasized that the complainant had no authorization from his daughter to initiate the recovery of her stridhan. The Court also observed that there was no evidence to substantiate the claim that the stridhan was entrusted to the appellants or that it was dishonestly misappropriated.Given the lack of evidence and the unexplained delay in filing the FIR, the Supreme Court found no grounds to proceed under Section 406 IPC or Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court quashed the FIR, highlighting that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for revenge or vendetta, especially when the facts do not support the allegations.
No Comments
