Law Maker

Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar

Supreme Court of India, 12 March 1985, 3 judges, 1985 AIR 628; 1985 SCR (3) 191; 1985 SCC (2) 370

A wife's stridhan remains her absolute property even in the custody of her husband or in-laws; they hold it as trustees, and refusing to return it on demand can be criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC.

Facts

The appellant married Suraj Kumar in 1972. Her complaint alleged that dowry articles worth Rs. 60,000, including jewellery and clothes meant for her exclusive use, were entrusted to her husband and his relatives at the time of marriage, that she was turned out with her children in 1977 and later taken back, that on 11 December 1980 the accused left her at Ludhiana, and that they refused to return the articles despite demands, committing criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC. Following the Full Bench decision in Vinod Kumar Sethi v. State of Punjab, which treated a wife's property as jointly possessed in the matrimonial home, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the complaint under Section 482 CrPC. The wife appealed by special leave.

Questions before the Court

  1. Does a married woman's stridhan become joint property of the spouses once she enters the matrimonial home?
  2. Can a husband or his relatives who refuse to return stridhan entrusted to them be prosecuted for criminal breach of trust under Sections 405 and 406 IPC?
  3. Was the High Court right to quash the complaint under Section 482 CrPC?

What the Court held

  • Stridhan is the absolute property of the wife, which she may deal with as she likes; the husband has at most a personal right to use it in extreme distress. Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act do not abolish stridhan or bar a criminal remedy.
  • Stridhan does not become joint property on entering the matrimonial home. Even if placed in the custody of the husband or in-laws, they are deemed trustees bound to return it on demand. Keeping stridhan with the husband does not create a partnership.
  • Criminal and civil remedies can run side by side. A husband who dishonestly misappropriates or refuses to return his wife's stridhan can be prosecuted under Sections 405 and 406 IPC.
  • Under Section 482 CrPC the High Court must take the allegations in the complaint at face value. The allegations here were clear and specific and made out an offence under Section 406 IPC.
  • Vinod Kumar Sethi v. State of Punjab was overruled on these points. The appeal was allowed and the complaint restored.

Why it matters

The judgment holds that a wife's stridhan does not merge into joint property in the matrimonial home and that the husband and in-laws holding it are in the position of trustees, so that criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC lies against them. It overrules the contrary Full Bench view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and confirms that a civil remedy under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not bar prosecution.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“We are clearly of the opinion that the mere factum of the husband and wife living together does not entitle either of then to commit a breach of criminal law and if one does then he/she will be liable for all the consequences of such breach. Criminal law and matrimonial home are not strangers. Crimes committed in matrimonial home are as much punishable as anywhere else.”
Fazal Ali, J.Page 13 of the judgment
“It is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import. It is not at all intelligible to us to take the stand that if the husband dishonestly misappropriates the stridhan property of his wife, though kept in his custody, that would bar prosecution under s. 406 I.P.C.”
Fazal Ali, J.Page 14 of the judgment
“To this extent, therefore, we overrule this decision and hold that with regard to the stridhan property of a married woman, even if it is placed in the custody of her husband or in-laws they would be deemed to be trustees and bound to return the same if and when demanded by her.”
Fazal Ali, J.Page 20 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Case and bench

Parties
Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar & Anr.
Case
Criminal Appeal No. 684 of 1982
Decided
12 March 1985
Bench
Syed Murtaza Fazal Ali, Sabyasachi Mukharji, A. Varadarajan
Opinions
Majority 2:1. Fazal Ali, J. delivered the majority judgment for himself and Mukharji, J.; Varadarajan, J. dissented, holding that without a specific separate agreement of entrustment the complaint was rightly quashed.

Questions on this case

2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.