Jharkhand HC upholds wife’s right over Stridhan, dismisses husband’s appeal
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA RANCHI, August 27: The Jharkhand High Court has upheld a Family Court order recognising a woman’s right over her…
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
RANCHI, August 27: The Jharkhand High Court has upheld a Family Court order recognising a woman’s right over her kept in a bank locker and restrained her husband from operating the locker without her consent.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava dismissed an appeal filed by Anil Kumar Singh of Bokaro, challenging the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro’s December 2024 judgment and decree.
The case concerned a locker at Union Bank of India’s B.S. City Branch, Bokaro, which the husband and wife could operate jointly. The wife, Priya Raj, claimed that gold and silver jewellery worth around Rs 25 lakh, received as gifts from her parental and in-laws’ sides, constituted her stridhan and had been kept in the locker for safekeeping.
Wife claimed jewellery remained in joint locker
According to the wife, after she left her matrimonial home, her stridhan remained in the custody of the husband and the bank. She alleged that despite repeated requests, her husband did not return the jewellery.
She subsequently approached the Family Court seeking protection of her property and an injunction against operation of the locker without her knowledge.
The husband disputed the claim, maintaining that the wife had already taken her stridhan with her. He claimed that the jewellery remaining in the locker belonged to his mother, father, sister and sister-in-law.
High Court examines evidence on locker
The High Court noted that the existence of the locker and the linked savings account was not disputed by the husband. The locker was jointly operable by either spouse, but the evidence showed that the husband had operated it and retained the key, while the wife possessed the passbook.
The Bench also noted that the wife stood firm during cross-examination and categorically denied that the locker contained jewellery belonging to her mother-in-law, sister-in-law or other members of the husband’s family. The court found her testimony credible and reliable.
Husband failed to substantiate claim over jewellery
The court found that the husband had failed to produce sufficient evidence to support his claim that the jewellery in the locker belonged to his family members.
Significantly, the husband did not examine his brother, sister or sister-in-law to substantiate the claim that their jewellery had been deposited in the locker. The court also noted the mother’s admission that the locker had been opened only after the marriage of the appellant and the respondent.
The Bench consequently held that the defence claim that the jewellery belonged exclusively to the husband’s mother, sister and sister-in-law could not be accepted as credible.
Family Court order found legally sound
The High Court held that the Family Court had carefully considered both oral and documentary evidence before granting relief to the wife.
It agreed with the Family Court’s finding that the stridhan lying in Locker No. GB-69, linked to Savings Bank Account No. 452402010750832 at Union Bank of India, B.S. City branch, constituted the wife’s absolute property.
The Family Court had accordingly restrained the defendants from operating the locker or allowing it to be operated behind the wife’s back.
High Court dismisses husband’s appeal
The Division Bench found no perversity in the Family Court’s findings and held that the lower court had properly assessed the evidence.
“Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed,” the Bench ruled, upholding the judgment dated December 7, 2024, and decree dated December 18, 2024, passed by the Family Court, Bokaro.
