When application for return of streedhan in Domestic violence proceeding is not barred by limitation?
see whether retention of stridhan by the husband or any other family
members is a continuing offence or not. There can be no dispute that
wife can file a suit for realization of the stridhan but it does not debar
her to lodge a criminal complaint for criminal breach of trust. We
must state that was the situation before the 2005 Act came into force.
In the 2005 Act, the definition of “aggrieved person” clearly postulates
about the status of any woman who has been subjected to domestic violence
as defined under Section 3 of the said Act. “Economic abuse”
as it has been defined in Section 3(iv) of the said Act has a large can-
vass. Section 12, relevant portion of which have been reproduced
hereinbefore, provides for procedure for obtaining orders of reliefs. It
has been held in Inderjit Singh Grewal (supra) that Section 498 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to the said case under the
2005 Act as envisaged under Sections 28 and 32 of the said Act read
with Rule 15(6) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Rules, 2006. We need not advert to the same as we are of the considered
opinion that as long as the status of the aggrieved person remains
and stridhan remains in the custody of the husband, the wife can always
put forth her claim under Section 12 of the 2005 Act. We are disposed
to think so as the status between the parties is not severed because
of the decree of dissolution of marriage. The concept of “continuing
offence” gets attracted from the date of deprivation of stridhan, for
neither the husband nor any other family members can have any right
over the stridhan and they remain the custodians. For the purpose of
the 2005 Act, she can submit an application to the Protection Officer
for one or more of the reliefs under the 2005 Act. In the present case,
the wife had submitted the application on 22.05.2010 and the said authority
had forwarded the same on 01.06.2010. In the application, the
wife had mentioned that the husband had stopped payment of monthly
maintenance from January 2010 and, therefore, she had been compelled
to file the application for stridhan. Regard being had to the said
concept of “continuing offence” and the demands made, we are disposed
to think that the application was not barred by limitation and
the courts below as well as the High Court had fallen into a grave error
by dismissing the application being barred by limitation.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1545 OF 2015
(@ SLP(Crl) No. 10223 OF 2014)
Krishna Bhatacharjee ... Appellant
Versus
Sarathi Choudhury and Anr. ... Respondents
Dated;November 20, 2015
https://www.lawweb.in/2015/11/when-application-for-return-of.html
