498a
jogesh
(Querist) 20 April 2015
This query is : Resolved
is it legal to seize stuff given to the male by the parent of female at the time of marriage, by the police on the day of FIR.
the day of FIR the girl side people came and seize stuff and taken away. is it legal with out divorce without any proceeding from the court or without the court order.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 20 April 2015
They cannot do so by merely filing FIR.File a complaint u/s 441 crpc,
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 20 April 2015
What were the stuffs? Whether the wife has included these items in her complaint as stridhan or as dowry items?
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 20 April 2015
UR in laws cannot tresspass into UR house and take away the items, unless they prove in the court by providing valid papers regarding the same.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 21 April 2015
Yes, whatever the girl received at the time of marriage belongs to her only and is liable for seizure.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 21 April 2015
Barmanji,
They have no right to trespass,when the matter is in the hands of IO after they have lodged an FIR.Just because an FIR is filed the inlaws have no right to enter son in laws house and take away the belongings.He can file a complaint u/s 448 crpc.
Guest
(Expert) 21 April 2015
Discuss the real problem, if you have any, instead of raising a question of academic nature.
Guest
(Expert) 21 April 2015
Sainath ji and Barman ji,
The query of the querist seems to be merely an academic question, as he has not given any background of the case. So, I don't think there should be any need to raise any controversy over the replies of each other, when the querist has failed to discuss any case history.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 21 April 2015
Dhingraji,
I just gave my version,may be right ,may not be
Guest
(Expert) 21 April 2015
Sainath ji,
I have not criticised you or Shri Barman. I have merely alerted you about the vagueness of the query without any background. Moreover, the question is not whether right or wrong opinion, as rightness of opinion depends solely on the characteristics and the appropriate background history of the case, which the querist has not tried to make us aware of. When he does not want to discuss, what is the real problem, he does not deserve reply to his query.
You can see that the querist has not responded so far even after my observation.
Guest
(Expert) 21 April 2015
Sainath ji,
Thanks for understanding me in right perspective.
jogesh
(Querist) 21 April 2015
wife has mentioned all the stuff as dowry not as stridhan
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 21 April 2015
Dhingraji, I may missed to notice the academic nature of the query.
You may have noticed that I am a fierce critic of academic queries.
Guest
(Expert) 21 April 2015
Barman ji,
I am fully aware of it. I just intended to alert you about what you could miss just to avoid wasting of your time any more on a vague query. You would have noticed that even now the querist have quoted a vague reason instead of providing basic details of case.
