Husband Admitted Wife Left 7 Tolas Gold, 2kg Silver In Matrimonial Home; Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Order To Return Her Articles

The respondent wife sought return under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, of articles and jewellery allegedly given to her at marriage and retained at the matrimonial home.

The husband and his parents denied her claim, asserting, among other things, that she had taken the jewellery and other articles when she left. The Family Court partly allowed her claim and ordered return of specified articles and ornaments. The husband and his parents appealed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the evidentiary basis for that order

In appeal, the Court noted the husband’s cross-examination admissions that the wife had brought seven tolas of gold and two kilograms of silver articles to his house and left them in a cupboard there.

Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was the basis of the wife’s application for return of the articles and ornaments.

Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 contemplates a written list of presents given to the bride and bridegroom at marriage or as soon as possible thereafter; however, failure to produce such a list is not conclusive proof that no presents were given or that the claimed articles did not exist.

The Court also applied the evidentiary principle that a party’s admission may support a claim, and that an unpleaded defence unsupported by an appropriate suggestion in cross-examination is insufficient to establish the alleged removal of articles.

It distinguished Ashutosh Dewangan v. Savita Dewangan and Tamradhwaj Gayakwad v. Jyoti Gayakwad as decisions dependent on their respective facts.

The Court held that the age or name appearing on purchase bills, and the absence of bills for some items, did not by themselves defeat the wife’s claim, particularly given the husband’s admissions that she had brought gold and silver articles to the matrimonial home and left them in his cupboard.

The husband’s assertion that she later returned with a friend and removed the articles was not accepted: the specific allegation was not pleaded in the written statement or put to the wife in cross-examination.

Nor did the absence of a list under Rule 2 displace the husband’s admissions. Considering the evidence cumulatively, the Court found no material error in the Family Court’s assessment.

It affirmed the Family Court’s judgment and decree directing the husband to return the articles and ornaments specified therein to the wife within the stipulated period; each party was ordered to bear its own costs.