DOMENDRA KUMAR SAHU vs TONIKA SAHU

Page 1 of 15
{FA(MAT)No.336/2025}

CGHC010390282025 2026:CGHC:46112-DB
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
SISTA
SOMAYAJULU
Date:
2026.11.05
13:42:07
+0530
SISTA
SOMAYAJULU
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FA(MAT) No. 336 of 2025
{Arising out of judgment and decree dated 13-3-2025 in Civil Suit
No.109A/2023 of the Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari}
1.
Domendra Kumar Sahu, S/o Thakur Ram Sahu, aged 29 years, R/o
Shraddha Nagar, Amatalaab Road, Police Station City Kotwali, Tehsil
and District Dhamtari (C.G.) (wrongly mentioned as Damendra in
Annexure A/1)
2. Thakur Ram Sahu, father late Baliyar Sahu, aged about 72 years, R/o
Shraddhanagar, Amatalaab Road, Dhamtari, Police Station City
Kotwali, Tehsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.)
3. Mrs. Bhanumati Sahu, W/o Thakur Ram Sahu, aged about 60 years,
R/o Shraddhanagar, Amatalaab Road, Dhamtari, Police Station City
Kotwali, Dhamtari, Tehsil & District Dhamtari (C.G.)
(Defendants)
... Appellants
versus
Tonika Sahu, W/o Domendra Sahu, aged about 27 years, R/o
Shraddhanagar, Amatalaab Road, Dhamtari, Present Resident
Gokulpur, Ward Karma Nagar, Police Station City Kotwali,
Dhamtari, Tehsil & District Dhamtari (C.G.)
(Plaintiff)
... Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mrs. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate.
Division Bench: -
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu and
Hon'ble Smt. Sushma Sawant, JJ.
Judgment On Board
(30/10/2026)

Page 2 of 15
{FA(MAT)No.336/2025}
Sushma Sawant, J.
1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19(1) of
the Family Courts Act, 1984, the appellants herein/defendants, who are
husband and in-laws of the plaintiff, have preferred this appeal
challenging the judgment & decree dated 13-3-2025 passed by the
Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari in Civil Suit No.109A/2023 ( Tonika
Sahu v. Domendra Kumar Sahu and two others ), by which the
application filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff wife under Section
27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , for return of gift articles and
jewellery, has been partly allowed.
2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual
backdrop: -
(For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred
as per their status shown and ranking given in the civil suit before the
Family Court.)
-:Factual Matrix:-
Admitted Facts: -
3.
It is an admitted fact that marriage between respondent/plaintiff
wife Tonika Sahu and appellant/defendant No.1 Domendra
Kumar Sahu was solemnized on 9-12-2020 , and defendants No.2
and 3 being parents of defendant No.1 are father-in-law and mother-in-
law of the respondent/plaintiff.

Page 3 of 15
{FA(MAT)No.336/2025}
-:Case of the Respondent herein/Plaintiff Wife before the
Family Court:-
4. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that at the time of marriage, her
father purchased and gifted various household articles, furniture,
electronic appliances and an Activa vehicle, along with other
accessories. Gifts received from relatives and guests, as well as ₹
50,000/- in cash, were also given to the appellants/defendants. Despite
this, the appellants/defendants allegedly demanded additional dowry,
subjected the respondent/plaintiff to physical and mental cruelty, and
ultimately assaulted and deserted her on 10-5-2023, since when she has
been residing at her parental home. It is the further case of the
respondent/plaintiff that she was given gold and silver jewellery,
comprising approximately 7 tolas of gold and 2 kg of silver, as her
Stridhan .
5. It is also the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the appellants/
defendants have illegally retained the said jewellery and, despite her
demand, they have refused to return it. She has also expressed
apprehension that the appellants/defendants are selling, pawning,
destroying or altering the jewellery to make its identification difficult,
thereby causing loss of her Stridhan . On the aforesaid factual
premise, the respondent/plaintiff has approached the Court seeking
appropriate relief and protection of her Stridhan .

Page 4 of 15
{FA(MAT)No.336/2025}
-:Written Statement of the Appellants herein/Defendants
before the Family Court:-
6. The appellants/defendants, in their written statement, have denied the
remaining allegations made by the respondent/plaintiff. They have
contended that, considering the poor financial condition of the
respondent/plaintiff's family at the time of marriage, the expenses of
marriage were borne by the father of appellant/defendant No.1 i.e.
defendant No.2. They have further stated that the respondent/
plaintiff's family had provided certain household articles, including
furniture, electronic appliances, an old computer and an old Activa
vehicle, for the establishment of their matrimonial life. They have
alleged that the respondent/plaintiff, being desirous of pursuing a
government job, preferred to attend coaching classes and consequently
spent very little time at the matrimonial home.
7.
It is also pleaded that on 10-5-2023, following a dispute, the
respondent/plaintiff voluntarily left the matrimonial home along with
her gold and silver jewellery, including the ornaments given by the
appellants/defendants and their family members, as well as the Activa
vehicle. According to the appellants/defendants, the respondent/
plaintiff had already taken possession of the jewellery belonging to both
sides. They have finally contended that the household articles were
provided for the common use of the respondent/plaintiff and appellant
No.1/defendant No.1 during their matrimonial life and, therefore, same
cannot be claimed exclusively by the respondent/plaintiff. On these

Page 5 of 15
{FA(MAT)No.336/2025}
grounds, the appellants/defendants have sought dismissal of the
plaintiff's application/claim.
-:Proceedings before the learned Family Court:-
8. The Family Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence
available on record, framed following issues and answered the issues as
under:-
S.No. Issues Finding

1. क्या वादिनी विवाहमेंभेंटस्वरूपप्राप्तवस्तुएंजो
आंशिक रूप से प्रमाणित
,
वादपत्रमेंउल्लेखि तहै प्रतिवादीकेघरलेगयीथी
?
औरजोवर्तमानमेंप्रतिवादीगणकेआधिपत्यमेंहै
2. क्या वादिनी को विवाह के समय उसके परिवारवालों द्वारा
वादपत्र में उल्लेखि त कथित रूप से दी गयी वस्तुओं तथा
आंशिक रूप से प्रमाणित
?
जेवरात को प्रतिवादीगण से प्राप्त करने की अधिकारिणी है
दावा आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार
3.
?
सहायता एवं वाद व्यय
-: Details of evidence and documents available before the
Family Court:-
Evidence led by the respondent herein/plaintiff:-
9. Before the Family Court, respondent/plaintiff wife Tonika Sahu has
examined herself as PW-1 and Yogesh Kumar Sahu as PW-2 , on
behalf of the respondent/plaintiff wife and exhibited as many as fifteen
documents Exs.P-1 to P-15 which were admitted in evidence.
Evidence led by the appellants herein/defendants:-
10. Similarly, on behalf of the appellants herein/defendants, appellant No.1
herein/defendant No.1 husband Domendra Kumar Sahu has
examined himself as DW-1 . However, no document has been exhibited
on their behalf for admission in evidence.

Page 6 of 15
{FA(MAT)No.336/2025}
-:Finding and Judgment of the Family Court :-
11. Parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence and after completion
of trial, the suit/application of the respondent herein/plaintiff wife has
been partly allowed directing the appellants/defendants to return some
of the articles to the respondent/plaintiff, vide j udgment dated 13-3-
2025 , being aggrieved against which, this appeal has been filed on the
following grounds:-
(i) The impugned judgment passed by the learned Family Court
approving the plaintiff/respondent’s application ordering the
defendants/appellants to return the items under Section 27 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and contrary
to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
(ii) The learned Family Court committed a gross illegality in
ordering that defendant should hand over the double bed, sofa set,
cupboard, dressing table, sewing machine, cooler, mixer, oven, T.V.,
Tea-table, computer set, computer table, induction, washing
machine, some clothes of the plaintiff, locket, gold bracelet, one tola
gold coin, gold ring, gold chain, nose-piece, earrings, waist belt, toe
ring, anklet, lachcha to plaintiff Smt. Tonika Sahu within three
months.
(iii) The learned Family Court failed to take into consideration the
lack of evidence from the side of the plaintiff before passing the final
order in favour of the plaintiff.

Page 7 of 15
{FA(MAT)No.336/2025}
(iv) The respondent has admitted that she has not submitted any bill
for Mangalsutra . She has admitted that some of the bills were of
years 2005, 2017 and even 2018 whereas, the marriage has taken
place in the year 2020. Therefore, they have submitted old bills
which are not related to marriage. In some of the bills, appellant has
been shown as buyer. In her affidavit, she has nowhere mentioned
that a list was prepared of gifts during the marriage to the bride
which is mandated under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition
(Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom)
Rules, 1985.
(v) Father of the respondent also submitted his affidavit under Order
18 Rule 4 and he was also cross-examined. In the cross-examination,
he has accepted that he has not given filed bill in the case. He has
accepted that the bills are old. He has also accepted that he has not
made any complaint in the police station regarding alleged
harassment of her daughter. He has clearly admitted that the list of
articles which has been mentioned in the relief clause of the
application have not been supported by any bills.
(vi) The Family Court passed the order on unproven grounds simply
based upon the testimony as provided by the plaintiff and on the
cross-examination of the defendant without fully appreciating the
evidences as it was required to reconcile.

Page 8 of 15
{FA(MAT)No.336/2025}
(vii) The learned Family Court passed an order without taking
consideration of the fact that the plaintiff failed to provide receipts of
one gold bracelet, 7 tola gold, 2 kilograms silver.
(viii) The Family Court’s decision falls in direct contradiction of the
judgment as provided by this Court in the case of Ashutosh
Dewangan v. Savita Dewangan {FA(MAT) No.85 of 2019}
wherein, owing to the lack of bills presented by the respondent, this
Court held that respondent would only be entitled for those articles
which have been admitted by the appellant as his evidence.
12. It is particularly noteworthy that the appeal has been finally heard with
the consent of both parties.
-:Points for Determination:-
13. Considering the entire facts of the case, the following two points would
emerge for determination of the issue: -
1. Whether the learned Family Court was justified in
holding that the articles mentioned in para 22 sub-clause
(a) of the impugned judgment were established to be the
property of the respondent/plaintiff wife and in directing
their return to her?
2. Whether the findings recorded by the learned Family
Court suffer from any perversity, illegality or material
misappreciation of oral and documentary evidence
warranting interference in this appeal?

Page 9 of 15
{FA(MAT)No.336/2025}
-:Argument of the Appellants/Defendants Husband and In-
laws:-
14.Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants husband and in-laws
submits that the learned Family Court has erred in directing return of
all the articles and ornaments claimed by the respondent/plaintiff wife
without reliable documentary evidence establishing that the same were
given to her at the time of marriage or entrusted to appellant
No.1/defendant No.1 husband. It is further contended that several bills
relied upon by the respondent/wife pertain to periods prior to the
marriage, some stand in the name of the appellants, and the alleged
Mangalsutra, gold bracelet, one tola gold coin and other ornaments are
not supported by any bills or receipts.
15.Learned counsel further submits that, the Family Court has erroneously
relied upon the oral testimony of the respondent/plaintiff wife without
properly appreciating the evidence on record. Placing reliance upon
Ashutosh Dewangan (supra), decided on 12-2-2025, learned counsel
submits that, in the absence of documentary evidence, the
respondent/plaintiff wife could be held entitled only to those articles
specifically admitted by the appellants. Accordingly, the impugned
judgment and decree deserve to be set aside.
-:Argument of the Respondent/Plaintiff Wife:-
16.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff wife supports
the impugned judgment and submits that the Family Court has rightly
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record. It
is contended that appellant No.1/defendant No.1 himself has admitted,

Page 10 of 15
{FA(MAT)No.336/2025}
in his cross-examination, particularly from paragraph 7 onwards, that
the respondent/plaintiff wife had brought seven tolas of gold and two
kilograms of silver articles, including ornaments belonging to her
grandmother, to the matrimonial home and had left those articles in the
cupboard kept in his house. Such an admission is material and
establishes not only the fact that the ornaments were brought by the
respondent/plaintiff wife to the matrimonial home but also that they
were left there.
17.Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this
Court in the matter of Tamradhwaj Gayakwad v. Jyoti Gayakwad,
FA(MAT) No.355 of 2025, decided on 6-7-2026 .
-: Finding and Analysis of the Appellate Court :-
Points for determination No.1 and 2:-
18. Points for determination No.1 and 2 are taken up together for
consideration, as they are interconnected.
19. The following admitted facts have emerged during the course of the
appeal. The respondent/plaintiff wife and appellant No.1/defendant
No.1 husband have been granted a decree of divorce by the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari, vide judgment and decree dated 4-8-
2025 passed in Civil Suit No.159A/2024 . By the said judgment,
permanent alimony of ₹ 3,00,000/- was awarded in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff wife, with a direction to pay the same within three
months.

Page 11 of 15
{FA(MAT)No.336/2025}
20. The judgments of the coordinate Benches relied upon by both the
parties, namely Ashutosh Dewangan (supra) and Tamradhwaj
Gayakwad (supra), are based on the facts and circumstances of those
respective cases. Since the facts of the present case are not identical to
the aforesaid cases, it would be appropriate to examine the matter
independently on the basis of the evidence available on record and
determine whether the learned Family Court has committed any error
in passing the impugned judgment.
21.The principal controversy in the present appeal relates to the
respondent/plaintiff wife’s entitlement to receive the articles and
ornaments claimed by her in the application under Section 27 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, particularly in view of the defence taken by
the appellants/defendants husband that the respondent/plaintiff wife
had already taken away the said articles and ornaments with her while
leaving the matrimonial home.
22. The appellants/defendants have primarily challenged the impugned
judgment by raising objections regarding the bills produced in support
of the respondent/plaintiff wife’s claim, contending that some articles
are not supported by any bills, some bills pertain to an earlier period,
and certain bills stand in the name of the appellant or the
respondent/plaintiff wife’s father.
23.
So far as the objections regarding the absence of bills, their being of an
earlier date, or their standing in the name of either the father of the
respondent/plaintiff or the appellant/defendant are concerned, such

Page 12 of 15
{FA(MAT)No.336/2025}
circumstances, by themselves, cannot be considered decisive in the
context of articles purchased for a daughter's marriage. In Indian
families, parents often begin making preparations for their daughter's
marriage well in advance, according to their means and requirements,
and ornaments may sometimes be purchased much earlier. Similarly,
certain articles may also be purchased in the name of the prospective
bridegroom. Therefore, merely on these grounds, the entire claim
cannot be discarded, particularly when appellant No.1/defendant No.1,
Domendra, himself has admitted that the respondent/plaintiff wife had
also brought ornaments belonging to her grandmother (paragraph 7 of
her cross-examination).
24. Apart from the aforesaid, the cross-examination of appellant No.1/
defendant No.1 Domendra Sahu (DW-1) further reveals that, in
paragraph 7 , he has admitted that the respondent/plaintiff wife had
brought seven tolas of gold and two kilograms of silver articles to his
house. In paragraph 8 , he has further admitted that the said articles
included ornaments belonging to the respondent/plaintiff wife’s
grandmother and that she had left those articles in the cupboard of his
house.
25. In view of the aforesaid admission, the objections raised by the
appellants/defendants regarding the bills and receipts, their absence or
otherwise, become inconsequential and cannot, by themselves, defeat
the respondent/plaintiff wife's claim.

Page 13 of 15
{FA(MAT)No.336/2025}
26. The further defence taken by the appellants/defendants is that on 24-5-
2023, the respondent/plaintiff wife had come to the matrimonial home
along with her friend and taken away all the articles. However, the said
defence does not appear to be acceptable, particularly in view of the
admissions emerging from paragraphs 9 and 10 of the cross-
examination of appellant No.1/defendant No.1, wherein he has stated
th
that on 10 May, 2023, the respondent/plaintiff wife had come directly
from her coaching centre at Bilaspur to Sakhi One Stop
Centre, Dhamtari , and thereafter went to her parental home.
27. However, the aforesaid statement made in paragraph 11 does not
appear to be worthy of acceptance for two reasons. Firstly , no specific
suggestion was put to the respondent/plaintiff wife during her cross-
examination that she had visited the matrimonial home on 24-5-2023
along with her friend and taken away her clothes, jewellery and other
articles in question. Secondly , no such specific plea appears to have
been raised by the appellants/defendants in their written statement. In
the absence of such a pleading and an appropriate suggestion to the
respondent/plaintiff wife, the subsequent statement of the appellant
cannot be accepted as sufficient proof of the alleged removal of the
articles.
28.
As regards the objection based upon Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition
(Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules,
1985, it is true that the said Rule contemplates maintenance of a written
list of presents given to the bride and bridegroom at the time of

Page 14 of 15
{FA(MAT)No.336/2025}
marriage or as soon as possible thereafter, containing the prescribed
particulars and signatures. However, non-production of such a list
cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof that no presents were
given to the bride or that the articles claimed by her were never in
existence. The evidence adduced by the parties, including the
admission made by appellant No.1/defendant No.1, has to be considered
on its own merits.
29. In the present case, the absence of such a list does not outweigh the
specific admission of appellant No.1/defendant No.1 regarding gold and
silver articles having been brought to his house and left in the cupboard.
On a cumulative consideration of the evidence, it is apparent that
appellant No.1/defendant No.1's own testimony supports the
respondent/plaintiff wife's case regarding the presence of gold and
silver articles in the matrimonial home. The Family Court has,
therefore, rightly appreciated the evidence and reached to the
conclusion regarding the respondent/plaintiff wife's entitlement to
receive the articles mentioned in the impugned judgment.
30. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned
Family Court, which is based on proper appreciation of evidence
available on record. Accordingly, both the points for determination are
answered against the appellants/defendants and in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff wife.

Page 15 of 15
{FA(MAT)No.336/2025}
-:Final Conclusion :-
31. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed .
The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court
directing appellant No.1/defendant No.1 husband to return the articles
and ornaments mentioned therein to the respondent/plaintiff wife
within the stipulated period, are hereby affirmed. Both parties shall
bear their own costs.
32. Let the decree be drawn up accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sushma Sawant)
JUDGE JUDGE
Soma