Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on August 29, 2024 held that if a woman is the sole owner of 'stridhan' and her husband has no right over it, this would necessarily mean her father too has no right over it.

Court said that her father will not have any right over it when she is alive, well, and entirely capable of making decisions such as pursuing the cause of the recovery of such properties.

After about 16 years of marriage, the complainant's daughter in 2016 secured divorce by mutual consent in a court in the USA by settling all financial and material issues. She got remarried the USA in 2018.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol allowed an appeal filed by Mulakala Malleshwara Rao and his wife, against the Telangana High Court's order of December 22, 2022, which declined to quash a 2021 FIR lodged against them by Padala Veerabhadra Rao, the father-in-law of their son for allegedly not returning the gold ornaments given at the time of marriage in 1999.

The court held no cognizable offence is visible on the face of the record as the action being initiated more than 5 years after the divorce and settlement of all issues, and 3 years after the daughter's remarriage was "hopelessly belated in time". 

"The object of criminal proceedings is to bring a wrongdoer to justice, and it is not a means to get revenge or seek a vendetta against persons with whom the complainant may have a grudge. The principle in law that delay in filing the FIR has to be satisfactorily explained and does not need any reiteration," the bench said.

The court noted in the FIR, the authorities are requested to take action against the appellant for not returning the gifts given by the complainant to his daughter at the time of the marriage, however, in the charge-sheet such a complaint turns into a demand of dowry and being pressured into incurring expenses for marriage related functions. 

"The question that is to be answered is that when the point of genesis is separate and distinct, how does the end result turn into something that is entirely foreign to the point of genesis," the bench asked.

In 2021, the complainant lodged an FIR under Section 406 of the IPC, alleging the jewellery which he had given to his daughter at the time of her marriage as ‘stridhan’, but entrusted to her-in laws were not returned by the appellants.

Since the High Court found the charges levelled in a charge sheet as triable, the appellants filed the instant plea before the Supreme Court.

The apex court examined the issue whether the father i.e., the complainant herein, had any locus to file the FIR, keeping in view that the same was affected by delay and laches, thereby expressly being non-maintainable and whether the High Court was correct in refusing to quashing the proceedings.

The bench said the sum and substance of the present dispute lie in the father’s right over the gifts, i.e., ‘stridhan’ given by him to his daughter at the time of marriage. The generally accepted rule, which has been judicially recognised, is that the woman exercises an absolute right over the property, it said.

Referring to the jurisprudence devloped on the issue of 'stridhan', the bench said this court is unequivocal with respect to the singular right of the female (wife or former wife) as the case may be, being the sole owner of ‘stridhan’. 

"It has been held that a husband has no right, and it has to then be necessarily concluded that a father too, has no right when the daughter is alive, well, and entirely capable of making decisions such as pursuing the cause of the recovery of her ‘stridhan’," the bench said.

The court also pointed out Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 talks about a Hindu female being the absolute owner of property. 

It noted the action was initiated for securing possession of the articles and ornaments after a passage of more than 20 years since the date of marriage and five years after the settlement of all marital issues at the time of divorce and that too, not by the former wife, i.e., the complainant’s daughter, but by the complainant himself. 

This was coupled with the fact that there is no authorization on the part of the complainant’s daughter in his favour to initiate proceedings for recovery of ‘stridhan’ exclusively belonging to her, it said.

The court noted Section 5 of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882 provided for a situation where a woman may, in law, grant a person of her choosing the authority to do any act which she may herself execute. 

However, "no such power of attorney, within the meaning of this Act, stood executed by the complainant’s daughter, in favour of her father," it said.

Referring to State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal (1992), the bench said when the FIR or any other document enclosed therewith does not disclose a cognizable offence; and that where criminal proceeding is initiated with manifest mala fides, ulterior motives or with a view to spite, are important in the present facts. 

With regard to offence under Section 405 of the IPC as alleged in the case, the bench said the very first ingredient itself is not made out, for there is no iota of proof on record to show that the complainant had entrusted the ‘stridhan’ of his daughter to the appellants which allegedly was illegally kept by them. 

The court also found there is nothing on record to substantiate that the complainant’s daughter's former in-laws converted the ‘stridhan’ allegedly kept in their custody, for their own use, more so, when the parties in matrimony had never ever raised ‘stridhan’ as an issue either in the subsistence of the marriage or thereafter, especially during the time of settlement of all issues.

There is nothing on record to substantiate the factum of possession actually being with the appellants, it said.

The bench also held that the charge under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was also not made out in the case.