Case Title:
Sri. Ganesh Prasad Hegde Vs. Smt. Surekha Shetty
Date:
6th June, 2022
Bench:
Justice M Nagaprasanna
Parties:
Petitioner – Sri. Ganesh Prasad Hegde
Respondent – Smt. Surekha Shetty
Subject
A criminal petition was filed under Section 482 of the CrPC praying to quash the order passed by the Lower Court.
Important Provisions
Section 482 of the CrPC – Saving of inherent powers of High Court.
Section 406 of the IPC –Punishment for criminal breach of trust.
Overview
- The respondent is the complainant and the petitioner was the husband of the respondent.
- The marriage between both the parties took place on 03/12/1998. The petitioner had received a total sum of Rs. 9 lakhs from the respondent’s family in two payments.
- The respondent was forced to leave her matrimonial house in the month of March, 2001.
- On 04/12/2007 the petitioner filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty which was later dismissed.
- The respondent raised a demand that the Stridhana amount of Rs. 9 lakhs had to be returned along with a 9% interest per annum.
- When the petitioner failed to pay the amount, the respondent filed a complaint about offences punishable under Section 406 of the IPC alleging criminal breach of trust.
Issues raised
- 1. Whether the permanent alimony amount covers Stridhana in divorce cases?
Advancements made by the Petitioners
- The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that nothing was left to be paid and the permanent alimony was to be in full and final settlement towards annulment of marriage.
- The learned counsel prayed for the petition to be allowed and all proceedings to be quashed.
Advancements made by the Respondents
- The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the permanent alimony of Rs. 4 lakhs did not contain the said amount which was paid prior to marriage.
- The petitioners cannot hold on to the Stridhana after divorce. It amounts to a criminal breach of trust for not returning the money despite the notice being issued.
Judgment Analysis
- The Court observed that the annulment of marriage did take place on the settlement between parties for an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs. This issue in this case was not in regard to the alimony amount but instead whether the Stridhana is included in the alimony amount
- The Court relied upon the case of Pratisha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar and another wherein it was stated that the Stridhana could not be retained by the family of the husband as they are only in temporary possession of them and therefore had to return it.
- In the case of Vinod Kumar Sethi and other Vs. State of Punjab and Others it was held that the retention of Stridhana would attract the offence of section 406 of the IPC.
- In the case of Karishma Khosla Vs. State of Delhi it was stated that wife was entitled to recover the articles.
- No Judicial forawas determined to include Rs. 9 lakhs of Stridhana in the settlement of Rs. 4 lakhs arrived at the annulment of marriage. The settlement was arrived at only for the purpose of annulment of marriage.
- The annulment of marriage does not mean that the articles brought in by the wife can be retained by the husband and his family.
Conclusion
The Court concluded by stating that the amount of Rs. 9 lakhs payable by the petitioner to the respondent would necessarily be a matter for trial against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC. Therefore, the Criminal Petition was dismissed due to lack of merit.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
