The husband has a moral and legal obligation to restore the Stridhan or its value to his wife: High Court of Tripura
Law is very clear on this point. Section 19 of the DV Act clearly provides that the Magistrate while disposing of an application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act can pass an order under Sub Section (1) of Section 19 or any other order under Sub Section (2) to Sub Section (8) of Section 19 of the Act. this was held in Sri Dipak Biswas and Ors v. Smt. Aditi Kar (Biswas) and Ors [MAC App. No. 55 of 2019] in the High Court of Tripura by the single bench consisting of MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY. Facts are Respondent-wife had filed an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, a complaint under Section 498A IPC and also maintenance petition U/S 125 Cr. P.C. She claimed in a petition for return of her stridhan and a direction to her husband prohibiting him from committing any act of domestic violence on her. The Court passed an order in favor of the wife. Aggrieved by the order the husband filed an appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge who affirmed the trial court order. Thus present petition has been filed to challenge the order passed by the Sessions Judge. The counsel for the petitioner that an order U/S.19(8) of the DV Act directing the husband to return Stridhan can be passed only when it is proved that domestic violence has taken place, of which there is no proof. The petitioner had already taken away by her stridhan while she left her matrimonial home. The counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the trial Court had called for a domestic violence report from the Protection Officer and such report along with the evidence adduced by the wife clearly proved that the wife was subjected to domestic violence and her stridhan was retained by her husband in the matrimonial home. Thus there is no reason to interfere with the order of the court. The Court made reference to judgment of Apex court in Krishna Bhattacharjee Vrs. Sarathi Choudhury and another, wherein the following observations were made, “a pure and simple entrustment of stridhan without creating any rights in the husband excepting putting the articles in his possession does not entitle him to use the same to the detriment of his wife without her consent. The husband has no justification for not returning the said articles as and when demanded by the wife nor can he burden her with losses of business by using the said property which was never intended by her while entrusting possession of stridhan. On the allegations in the complaint, the husband is no more and no less than a pure and simple custodian acting on behalf of his wife, and if he diverts the entrusted property elsewhere or for different purposes, he takes a clear risk of prosecution under Section 406 of the IPC. On a parity of reasoning, it is manifest that the husband, being only a custodian of the stridhan of his wife, cannot be said to be in joint possession thereof and thus acquire a joint interest in the property.” The Court also made reference to judgment of Apex court in Reshmi Kumar(Smt) V. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, wherein the following observations were made, “It is thus clear that the properties gifted to her before the marriage, at the time of marriage or at the time of giving farewell or thereafter are her stridhana properties. It is her absolute property with all rights to dispose at her own pleasure. He has no control over her stridhana property. Husband may use it during the time of his distress but nonetheless, he has a moral obligation to restore the same or its value to his wife. Therefore, stridhana property does not become a joint property of the wife and the husband and the husband has no title or independent dominion over the property as owner thereof.”
Page HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA Crl. Rev. P No.27 2018 Sri Dipak Biswas Son of Sri Dulal Biswas. Sri Dulal Biswas Son of late Ram Gour Biswas. All are resident of Viullage : Soutth Chandrapur P S R.K.Pur Udaipur District : Gomati Tripura. Versus Smt. Aditi KarWife of Sri Dipak Biswas At present residing at C o. Sri Milan Chandra Kar Rajbari P.S. R. K.Pur Udaipur District : Gomati Tripura. The State of Tripura. … Petitioner(s). … Respondent(s). THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. N. Majumder Sr. Advocate. Mr. S. C. Sen Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Ghosh Addl. Publc Prosecutor. Mr. A. Acharjee Advocate. : 17th March 2021. Date of hearing Date of Judgment & Order : 23rd April 2021. Whether fit for reporting : NO. JUDGMENT AND ORDER 1] Petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 02.05.2018 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 29(2) of 2017 by the Sessions Judge Gomati Judicial District Udaipur affirming judgment dated 05.06.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Udaipur Gomati Judicial District in case No.CR(DV) 24 of 2016 whereby the Crl. Rev. P No.27 2018. Page learned trial Court passed a protection order in favour of the respondent wife of the petitioner under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005prohibiting the petitioner from committing any act of domestic violence on his respondent wife and directing him to return her stridhan in terms of Sub Sectionof Section 19 of the DV Act. Brief facts of the case are as under: Respondent wife of the petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act in a Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Gomati Judicial District at Udaipur on 30.05.2016 alleging inter alia that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 23.07.2014 and at the time of marriage her parents gave a sum of Rs.5 00 000 in cash to her husband and other valuables including various items of jewellery furniture bed bedding etc. Few months after marriage her petitioner husband started demanding more cash from her parents for buying a car and respondent was subjected to torture by him for fulfillment of his demand. On 29.01.2016 she was beaten up by her husband. She informed her father to came and rescue her. Thereafter she filed a complaint under Section 498A IPC against her petitioner husband and also claimed maintenance allowance from him by filling a separate petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. It was alleged by the respondent wife that her husband forcefully retained her stridhan including her jewellery. She therefore claimed in a petition for return of her stridhan and a direction to her husband prohibiting him from committing any act of domestic violence on her. The respondent wife in her said petition Crl. Rev. P No.27 2018. furnished a list of her stridhan allegedly retained by her husband which is Page as under: “SCHEDULE OF PROPERTIES STRIDHAN” 01. Cash Rs.5 00 000 . 02. Raj Khat. 03. Steel Almirah. 04. Golden finger ring. 05. Golden chain. 06. Golden Bala. 07. Golden ear ring. 08. Golden Necklace. 09. Bed pillows Bed sheet Mosquito net etc. 10. Sharee. 11. Pital Picher. 12. Thala. 13. Glass. 14. Bati. 15. All Official Certificates. 16. All of the Educational Madhyamik to M.A. 17. Many other valuable items. 01 No. 01 No. 01 No. 01 No. 02 Nos. 02 Nos. 01 No. 20 Nos. 01 No. 02 Nos.(Kash) 02 Nos.(Kash) 02 Nos.(Kash) The Chief Judicial Magistrate received the complaint and made over the case to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Classat Udaipur. Having received summons petitioner husband and his father Dulal Biswas appeared in Court and a written statement was submitted by the father of the petitioner in which he stated that no cash was paid by the parents of the respondent wife during marriage. It was admitted that some ornaments were given to her by her parents during her marriage which were taken away by her while she left her matrimonial home on 29.01.2016. It was stated in the written statement of the father of the petitioner husband that the respondent wife was Crl. Rev. P No.27 2018. Page suffering from mental disorder for which she received treatment from various mental clinics at Agartala and Manipur and also at NIMHANS in Bangalore. The trial Court also called for a domestic incident report from the concerned Protection Officer and such report was submitted in Court on 20.10.2016. During trial of the case respondent wife examined herself as PW 1. Her father Sri Milan Chandra Kar as PW 2 a goldsmith namely Sri Arun Kumar Bhowmik as PW 3 and Smti Sikha Deb Sub Inspector of Police of R. K. Pur Women Police Station as PW 4. All these four witnesses were cross examined on behalf of the petitioner husband. Petitioner husband on the other hand examined his father In the course of trial following issues were framed by the Dulal Biswas as OPW 1. learned trial Court. on his wife Crl. Rev. P No.27 2018. Whether respondent No.1 committed domestic violence ii) Whether the articles claimed by the wife as her stridhan were actually lying in the possession of the husband iii) Whether the aggrieved wife was entitled to the recovery of her stridhan and if so to what extent iv) Whether she was entitled to any other relief reliefs On appreciation of evidence the trial Court held that the allegation of the wife with regard to commission of domestic violence Page against the husband was true. The learned trial judge therefore prohibited the petitioner husband from committing any act of domestic violence on his wife. This apart the learned trial Court also held that the wife was entitled to her stridhan which was retained by her husband and directed to return the following stridhan to the aggrieved wife. ARTICLES NAME 1. Gold finger ring 2. Gold chain 3. Gold Bala 4. Gold ear ring 5. Gold necklace weighing 121 2 vori) 6. Raj Khat 7. Steel Almirah 8. Bed and beddings 9. Saree 10. Pital Pitcher thala of 11. Glass of brass 12. Bati of brass Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the learned trial Court the husband and his father filed an appeal in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge in Gomati Judicial District Udaipur challenge the said judgment. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment affirmed the judgment of the trial Court and held as under: ―11. That being the position of the evidence of the Pws and the defence evidence being lacking in substance and clarity so as to re but the evidence of the PWs I find that the learned Trial court was right in directing the appellant husband to return Crl. Rev. P No.27 2018. Page the stridhan and gold ornaments to the petitioner respondent as mentioned in details in his order. As such I am of the view that the order of learned Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity and thus calls for no interference.‖ 10] As noted the petitioner husband has challenged the said judgment of the learned Sessions Jude by means of filing this criminal revision petition mainly on the following grounds: Proof of the commission of domestic violence is a sine qua non for passing any protection order under the DV Act. ii) The trial Court passed protection order including the order to the husband for return of stridhan without any proof of the commission of the domestic violence on the wife. iii) The Trial Court had erroneously viewed that filing of a case under Section 498A IPC against the husband is a proof of the commission of the domestic violence on the wife. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence properly and passed an erroneous judgment holding the husband guilty of commission of domestic violence. 11] It was pleaded by the petitioner husband that his wife had taken away her jewellery while leaving her matrimonial home. The petitioner husband however agreed to return the following articles to his Crl. Rev. P No.27 2018. Page respondent wife: Raj Khat Steel Almirah Bed and Bedding iv) Mosquito net Sarees Pital Pitcher Thala Glass and Bati etc. 12] Heard Mr. B. N. Majumder learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner husband along with Mr. S.C. Sen learned Advocate. Also heard Mr. A. Acharjee learned Counsel appearing for the respondent wife. 13] Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an order under Sub Sectionof Section 19 of the DV Act directing the husband to return Stridhan to the aggrieved wife can be passed only when it is proved that domestic violence has taken place. It is argued by Mr. B.N. Majumder learned Sr. Advocate that in the given case there is no proof of commission of domestic violence and in absence of such proof order directing the husband to return stridhan to the wife is completely erroneous. It is also argued by learned counsel of the petitioner that the jewellery which the wife got as her bridal gifts during marriage were taken away by her while she left her matrimonial home and in such circumstances the husband cannot be asked to return the same to his wife. Learned counsel therefore urges the Court to allow the criminal 14] Counsel appearing for the respondent wife on the other hand submits that the trial Court called for a domestic violence report from the Protection Officer and such report along with the evidence adduced by the wife clearly proved that the wife was subjected to domestic violence and her stridhan was retained by her husband while she was ousted from her Crl. Rev. P No.27 2018. revision petition. on sound evidence. Page matrimonial home. According to Mr. Acharjee there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below which are based 15] With regard to return of stridhan to the respondent wife it is submitted by learned counsel that legally the husband has no right over the stridhan of his wife. He can at best be regarded as the custodian of the stridhan of his wife and in no point of time he can claim any interest in such property of his wife. It is further argued by Mr. Acharjee learned counsel that if the husband invest the stridhan of his wife for any purpose of his own he would be liable to prosecution for criminal breach of trust. In support of his contention Mr. Acharjee has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Krishna Bhattacharjee Vrs. Sarathi Choudhury and another reported in 2 SCC 705 wherein the Apex Court has held as under: ―25. The said passage be it noted has been quoted Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Another10. In the said case the majority referred to the stridhan as described in ―Hindu Law‖ by N.R. Raghavachariar and Maine’s ―Treatise on Hindu Law‖. The Court after analyzing the classical texts opined that: ‖7. It is therefore manifest that the position of stridhan of a Hindu married woman’s property is absolutely clear and during coverture unambiguous she is the absolute owner of such property and can deal with it in any manner she likes — she may spend the whole of it or give it away at her own pleasure by gift or will without any reference to her husband. Ordinarily the husband has no right or interest in it with the sole exception that in times of extreme distress as in famine illness or the like the husband can utilise it but he is morally bound to restore it or its value when he is able to do so. It may be further noted that this right is purely personal to the husband and the property so received by him Crl. Rev. P No.27 2018. Page in marriage cannot be proceeded against even in execution of a decree for debt.‖ 26. In the said case the Court ruled: ―... a pure and simple entrustment of stridhan without creating any rights in the husband excepting putting the articles in his possession does not entitle him to use the same to the detriment of his wife without her consent. The husband has no justification for not returning the said articles as and when demanded by the wife nor can he burden her with losses of business by using the said property which was never intended by her while entrusting possession of stridhan. On the allegations in the complaint the husband is no more and no less than a pure and simple custodian acting on behalf of his wife and if he diverts the entrusted property elsewhere or for different purposes he takes a clear risk of prosecution under Section 406 of the IPC. On a parity of reasoning it is manifest that the husband being only a custodian of the stridhan of his wife cannot be said to be in joint possession thereof and thus acquire a joint interest in the property.‖ 27. The decision rendered in the said case was referred for a fresh look by a three Judge Bench. The three Judge Bench Rashmi Kumar(Smt) v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada11 while considering the issue in the said case ruled that : ―9. A woman’s power of disposal independent of is not confined to her husband’s control saudayika but extends to other properties as well. Devala says: ―A woman’s maintenance vritti) ornaments perquisites gains labha) are her stridhana. She herself has the exclusive right to enjoy it. Her husband has no right to use it except in distress….‖ In N.R. Raghavachariar’s Hindu Law — Principles and Precedents edited by Prof. S. Venkataraman one of the renowned Professors of Hindu Law para 468 deals with ―Definition of Stridhana‖. In para 469 dealing with ―Sources of acquisition‖ it is stated that the sources of acquisition of property in a woman’s possession are: gifts before marriage wedding gifts gifts subsequent to marriage etc. Para 470 deals with ―Gifts to a maiden‖. Para 471 deals with ―Wedding gifts‖ and it is stated therein that properties gifted at the time of marriage to the bride whether by relations or strangers either Crl. Rev. P No.27 2018. Page 1 Adhiyagni or Adhyavahanika are the bride’s stridhana. In para 481 at page 426 it is stated that ornaments presented to the bride by her husband or father constitute her Stridhana property. In para 487 dealing with ―powers during coverture‖ it is stated that saudayika meaning the gift of affectionate kindred includes both Yautaka or gifts received at the time of marriage as well as its negative Ayautaka. In respect of such property whether given by gift or will she is the absolute owner and can deal with it in any way she likes. She may spend sell or give it away at her own pleasure. 10. It is thus clear that the properties gifted to her before the marriage at the time of marriage or at the time of giving farewell or thereafter are her stridhana properties. It is her absolute property with all rights to dispose at her own pleasure. He has no control over her stridhana property. Husband may use it during the time of his distress but nonetheless he has a moral obligation to restore the same or its value to his wife. Therefore stridhana property does not become a joint property of the wife and the husband and the husband has no title or independent dominion over the property as owner thereof.‖ 16] In the given context the respondent wife had categorically stated in her examination in chief that apart from the cash sum of Rs.5 00 000 her parents gave several jewellery items to her at the time of her marriage which included necklace bala bracelet ear rings etc. Along with her application under Section 12 of the DV Act she also attached a list of such articles. In her list the jewellery items are described in Sl. No.4 to 8 which are as under: Sl. No. Golden finger ring Golden chain Golden Bala Golden ear ring Golden Necklace 01 No. 01 No. 02 Nos. 02 Nos. 01 No. Crl. Rev. P No.27 2018. Page 1 17] During trial of the case respondent wife also adduced the evidence of the goldsmith named Arun Kumar Bhowmik as PW 3 who owned a jewellery shop named Maa Sandhya Jewellers at Bangla Bazar Road Udaipur. In his testimony PW 3 had categorically stated that father of the respondent came to his shop and placed order for some jewellery items for the purpose of the marriage of the respondent and items were selected by the respondent herself. The father of the respondent then gave the list of the items in an order slip the receipt of which acknowledged by the PW by putting his signature thereon. The wife produced the receipt at the trial which was marked as Exbt.5. Five jewellery items have been mentioned in the said order slipalong with the weight of each of the items which are as under: 01. Golden 01 No. weighing 5.830 gm. 02. Golden chain weighing 01 No. 29.160 gm. 03. A pair of golden Bala weighing 60.500 gm. 04. Golden ear ring weighing 02 Nos. 02 Nos. 05. Golden Necklace weighing 01 No. 7.2900 gm. 42.992 gm. Jewellery items mentioned in the said order slip are same which have been mentioned in the list furnished by the respondent wife along with her petition under Section 12 of the DV Act. 18] In the course of hearing of this petition an advocate Commissioner was appointed by this Court vide order dated 15.06.2020 Crl. Rev. P No.27 2018. Page 1 on the basis of the submission of the counsel of the petitioner husband who submitted before the Court that the said jewellery items might have been lying in the personal almirah of the respondent wife. The advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court was requested to open the almirah in presence of the parties and return the articles to the respondent wife if she agrees to accept those articles and thereafter submit the report before the Court. The Commissioner reported that he could not open the almirah since the key was missing. After hearing the parties the said advocate Commissioner was asked to break open the almirah in presence of the parties and submit his report in sealed cover. Pursuant to the said order of this Court the Commissioner broke open the almirah at the house of the petitioner in presence of the father of the respondent wife and found 25 Sarees and several items of wearing apparels of the respondent wife her imitation jewellery and several items of cosmetics in the said almirah and no gold ornaments were found by the Commissioner. List of the articles recovered by the Commissioner has been prepared and submitted before this Court. 19] The situation in which respondent wife left her matrimonial home is very significant. In her evidence the respondent wife stated that on 29.01.2016 she was beaten up by her husband. 2 3 days thereafter she informed her parents. Her father came and rescued her with police assistance. PW 2 who is the father of the respondent also supported the evidence of his daughter by saying that he rescued his daughter from her matrimonial home with police assistance and thereafter she was Crl. Rev. P No.27 2018. Page 1 admitted in the district hospital at Udaipur where she was confined for two days. It is quite improbable that in such a situation it would have been possible for the respondent wife to carry all her jewellery items with her. It is no case of the petitioner that no jewellery or bridal gift was given to the respondent wife at the time of her marriage. Rather it has been abundantly proved by the list submitted by the advocate Commissioner that the respondent wife left everything of her daily use including her saree and all her wearing apparels her cosmetics imitation jewellery and even her purse in her almirah at her matrimonial home which indicates that she brought nothing with her. The Courts below have rightly held that tested on the preponderance of probability case of the wife appears to be more probable than that of her husband. Moreover the almirah in which she used to keep her own articles at her matrimonial home was lying in the custody of the husband. Interestingly when the Commissioner appointed by this Court went to the house of the petitioner husband to open the almirah it was told to him that the key was missing. It is no case of the husband that his wife had taken away the key with her. As a result the Commissioner was asked to break open the almirah. Everything other than the jewellery items was found intact inside the 20] As discussed it is submitted by learned counsel of the petitioner that without proof of the commission of domestic violence no order under Section 19 of the DV Act including the order for returning the stridhan to the possession of the aggrieved person can be made. Law is almirah. Crl. Rev. P No.27 2018. Page 1 very clear on this point. Section 19 of the DV Act clearly provides that the Magistrate while disposing an application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act can pass an order under Sub Section of Section 19 or any other order under Sub Sectionto Sub Sectionof Section 19 of the Act: “19. Residence orders.— While disposing of an application under sub section of section 12 the Magistrate may on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place pass a residence order— a) restraining dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household whether or not respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household b) directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household c) restraining the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides d) restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing of the shared household or encumbering the same e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except with the leave of the Magistrate or f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same if the circumstances so require: Provided that no order under clause shall be passed against any person who is a woman. 2) The Magistrate may impose any additional conditions or pass any other direction which he may deem reasonably necessary to protect or to provide for the safety of the aggrieved person or any child of such aggrieved person. 3) The Magistrate may respondent to execute a bond with or without Crl. Rev. P No.27 2018. Page 1 for preventing the commission of sureties domestic violence. 4) An order under sub section shall be deemed to be an order under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973and shall be dealt with accordingly. 5) While passing an order under sub section sub section or sub section the court may also pass an order directing the officer in charge of the nearest police station to give protection to the aggrieved person or to assist her or the person making an application on her behalf in the implementation of the order. 6) While making an order under sub section the Magistrate may impose on the respondent obligations relating to the discharge of rent and other payments having regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties. 7) The Magistrate may direct the officer in charge of the police station in whose jurisdiction the Magistrate has been approached to assist in the implementation of the protection order. 8) The Magistrate may direct the respondent to return to the possession of the aggrieved person her stridhan or any other property or valuable security to which she is entitled to.‖ 21] The respondent wife gave consistent evidence at the trial Court in support of her allegation that she was persistently abused by her husband which included physical abuse as well as emotional abuse. Her father PW 2 who was an Assistant Headmaster in a Government School also supported the statement of his daughter. PW 4 a woman Sub Inspector of Police who accompanied the father of the respondent wife to her matrimonial home categorically stated that when she reached the matrimonial home of the respondent wife along with her father to rescue the respondent wife from there she found her consistently crying. There Crl. Rev. P No.27 2018. Page 1 was no inmate of her matrimonial home besides her. Her husband or anybody else was not found there to console the lady. She wanted to return to her parents. Accordingly she was brought back from her matrimonial home. The police officer unambiguously stated that the respondent wife did not bring anything with her from her matrimonial home while returning to her parents. 22] Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Reshmi Kumar(Smt) Vrs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada reported in2 SCC 397 the trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the properties claimed by the respondent wife being her wedding gifts were stridhan and she was the absolute owner of the said property and the husband had a moral and legal obligation to restore the same or its value to his wife. The Apex Court in the said judgment has held as follows: A woman s disposal independent of her husband s control is not confined to saudavika but extends to other properties as well. Devala says: "A women s maintenance ornaments perquisites sulka) gains are her stridhana. She herself has the exclusive right to enjoy it. Her husband has no right to use it except in distress...". In "N.R. Raghavachariar s "Hindu law Principles and Precedents"edited by Prof. S. Venkataraman one of the renowned Professors of Hindu law para 468 deals with Definition of Stridhana". In para 469 dealing with "Sources of acquisition" it is stated that the sources of acquisition of property in a women s possession are: gifts before marriage wedding gifts gifts subsequent to marriage etc. Para 470 deals with "Gifts to a maiden". Para 471 deals with "Wedding gifts" and it is stated therein that properties gifted at the time of marriage to the bride whether by relations or strangers either Adhiyagni or Adhyavahanika are the bride s stridhana. In para 481 at page 426 it is stated Crl. Rev. P No.27 2018. Page 1 that ornaments presented to the bride by her husband or father constitute her Stridhana property. In para 487 dealing with "powers during coverture" it is stated that saudayika the gift of affectionate kindered includes both Yautaka or gifts received at the time of marriage as well as its negative Ayautaka. In respect of such property whether given by gift or will she is the absolute owner and can deal with it in any way she likes. She may spend sell or give it away at her own It is thus clear that the properties gifted to her before the marriage at the time of marriage or at the time of giving farewell or thereafter are her stridhana properties. It is her absolute property with all rights to dispose at her own pleasure. He has no control over her stridhana property. Husband may use it during the time of his distress but nonetheless he has a moral obligation to restore the same or its value to his wife. Therefore stridhana property does not become a joint property of the wife and the husband and the husband has no title or independent dominion over the property as owner thereof.‖ In view of what has been discussed above the allegation against the petitioner that he committed domestic violence within the meaning of Section 3 of the DV Act on his respondent wife has been proved and the Courts below correctly arrived at the finding that the petitioner committed domestic violence on his respondent wife. 24] With regard to the correctness of the direction of the Courts below to return stridhan to the possession of the respondent wife it can be safely held that the Courts below rightly directed the petitioner to return the stridhan including the jewellery items to his respondent wife. I find no reason to interfere with the said direction of the Courts below. Crl. Rev. P No.27 2018. Page 1 In the result the petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to restore the said stridhan in terms of the impugned order or pay its value to the respondent wife within a period of two months from Pending application(s) if any shall also stand disposed of. 25] Dipankar Send down the LCR immediately. Crl. Rev. P No.27 2018. 