Recovering Stridhan After Domestic Violence: Civil Protection, Criminal Complaint and Proof of Ownership

Abstract

Stridhan is property belonging exclusively to a woman, including qualifying gifts and property acquired by her. When a marriage breaks down in circumstances involving domestic violence, jewellery, cash and other belongings may remain with the husband or his relatives. Indian law provides several routes to seek their return. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) permits a Magistrate to order the return of stridhan; criminal proceedings may be available where the facts disclose dishonest misappropriation or cruelty; and a civil or family-court proceeding may provide a further remedy. The practical challenge is often proving what property belonged to the woman, who received or retained it, and whether it was wrongfully withheld. This article outlines the principal remedies, discusses leading Supreme Court decisions and identifies evidentiary and enforcement difficulties.

Introduction

A woman leaving an abusive marriage may be unable to take her jewellery, cash, gifts or other personal belongings with her. Those items may remain in the matrimonial home or in the custody of her husband or relatives. A dispute may then arise over whether the items were hers, who currently holds them, and whether they must be returned. The issue is not merely financial: access to personal property can affect a woman’s ability to establish an independent life.The Supreme Court has recognised that stridhan remains a woman’s exclusive property and does not become joint property merely because it is kept in the matrimonial home. However, a claimant may still need to establish the identity and ownership of the items and the circumstances in which they were entrusted or retained. This article considers the relevant legal framework, the principal remedies and the evidence that may assist a claim.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) came into force on 1 July 2024, subject to the commencement notification and applicable savings. Older judgments therefore refer to the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Those references should be retained when explaining the law applied in the earlier cases; the corresponding current provisions should be used for conduct and proceedings governed by the new enactments.

Background and Legal Framework

2.1 Meaning and ownership of stridhan- Stridhan generally refers to property given to or acquired by a woman over which she has exclusive ownership. Depending on the facts and applicable personal law, it may include jewellery, money and gifts received from her parents, relatives, friends or spouse, as well as property acquired by her. The decisive question is ownership, not the place where the property is kept. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides that property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the Act, is held by her as full owner, subject to the section’s terms and exceptions. Property rights may also arise under other personal laws. For example, section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 addresses specified amounts and properties to which a divorced Muslim woman is entitled. Danial Latifi v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740 concerned the interpretation and constitutionality of that Act. It should not be cited as a general decision defining stridhan for all communities. The DV Act’s remedies are available to an ‘aggrieved person’ who satisfies the Act’s requirements, irrespective of whether she is Hindu or Muslim.

2.2 The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961– Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 addresses dowry received by a person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it was given. It generally requires that person to transfer the property to the woman within the statutory period and to hold it in trust pending transfer. Section 6(2) provides punishment for failure to transfer the property, and section 6(3A) empowers the court, in the circumstances specified there, to direct transfer and permit recovery of the property’s value if the direction is not obeyed. Section 3(2) contains a limited exception for presents given to the bride or bridegroom at the time of marriage without a demand, subject to the statutory conditions and the rules on maintaining lists of presents. The Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 prescribe details for such lists. Not every gift to a woman is necessarily ‘dowry’; the statutory definition and the circumstances of the transfer must be considered. A claim should describe the items accurately rather than label all wedding gifts as dowry.

2.3 The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005– The DV Act provides civil relief to an aggrieved person who alleges domestic violence within the meaning of the Act. Section 3 includes economic abuse, including deprivation of resources or property to which the woman is entitled under law or custom. Under section 12, an aggrieved person, a Protection Officer or another person on her behalf may present an application to the Magistrate. Sections 18 to 23 provide for protection, residence, monetary, custody, compensation and interim or ex parte orders, subject to the conditions in each provision. Section 19(8) is particularly relevant: the Magistrate may direct the respondent to return the aggrieved person’s stridhan or other property or valuable security to which she is entitled. Section 20(1)(c), rather than section 20(1)(a), addresses loss caused by destruction, damage or removal of property from the aggrieved person’s control. Section 23 permits interim and, where the statutory conditions are met, ex parte relief. Section 31 creates an offence for breach of a protection order or interim protection order; it does not make every breach of every type of DV Act order an offence.

2.4 Criminal law and procedure- Section 316 of the BNS concerns criminal breach of trust. The prosecution must establish the applicable elements, including entrustment or dominion over property and dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal in violation of law or a legal contract. Section 316(2) prescribes punishment for the general form of criminal breach of trust. The existence of a matrimonial relationship or a civil remedy does not, by itself, rule out criminal liability; nevertheless, refusal to return property does not automatically prove every element of the offence. Sections 85 and 86 of the BNS concern cruelty by a husband or his relatives and the meaning of cruelty for that provision. A complaint should invoke these provisions only where the alleged facts meet their statutory requirements; a property dispute alone should not be described as cruelty without supporting facts. Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act may also be relevant where the property and circumstances fall within that section. Under the BNSS, information relating to a cognizable offence may be given under section 173. If the police refuse to record the information, the statutory procedure includes approaching the Superintendent of Police under section 173(4), before seeking an investigation order under section 175(3). In Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 139, the Supreme Court explained that section 175(3) requires the Magistrate to consider the application supported by an affidavit, may conduct such inquiry as considered necessary, and must consider the police officer’s submissions. A complaint before a Magistrate is governed by the relevant provisions including section 223; the procedural requirements should be checked against the facts and the current text of the BNSS.

During an investigation, section 94 of the BNSS may be used for production of documents or other things, and section 96 provides for search warrants in the circumstances specified by that section. Section 97 concerns a search of a place suspected to contain stolen property or specified related material; it should not be described as a general power to search for any missing stridhan. Section 106 concerns police seizure of certain property. Section 497 addresses custody and disposal of property pending inquiry or trial. The availability of any particular step depends on the facts, statutory conditions and the investigating officer’s or court’s powers.

Leading Decisions

3.1 Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar- In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, (1985) 2 SCC 370, the Supreme Court held that a married woman’s stridhan does not become joint property merely because it is kept in the matrimonial home or placed in the custody of her husband or in-laws. Where the necessary elements are established, dishonest retention or misappropriation after a demand for return may support a prosecution for criminal breach of trust under the IPC provisions then in force. The decision also makes clear that the availability of a civil remedy does not, by itself, bar a criminal remedy.

3.2 Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada- Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, (1997) 2 SCC 397, reaffirmed the woman’s exclusive ownership of her stridhan. The case is relevant to the principle that where entrustment of the property to the husband or a family member is established, the claimant need not prove a separate special agreement governing that entrustment. The prosecution must still prove the ingredients of criminal breach of trust under the law applicable to the alleged conduct.

3.3 Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury- In Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury, (2016) 2 SCC 705, the Supreme Court considered a claim for return of stridhan under the DV Act and the question of limitation. The Court treated the continuing deprivation of stridhan as a continuing wrong on the facts before it, where the woman continued to be an aggrieved person and the stridhan remained with the husband. The decision should not be overstated as holding that every stridhan claim is automatically immune from limitation, or that a claim can never be affected by the circumstances of the case. Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori, (2014) 10 SCC 736, is relevant to the continuation of DV Act remedies in relation to acts committed during a domestic relationship. It should be cited for the proposition actually decided, rather than as a substitute for the specific holding in Krishna Bhattacharjee.

Available Routes to Recovery

4.1 Application under the DV Act– An application under section 12 may seek appropriate relief under the DV Act, including a direction under section 19(8) for return of identified stridhan. Depending on the facts, the applicant may also seek protection, residence, monetary or compensation relief and interim measures under the relevant provisions. Section 26 permits reliefs available under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 to be sought in other legal proceedings, subject to the Act. In Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, (2016) 10 SCC 165, the Supreme Court struck down the words ‘adult male’ from section 2(q), broadening the class of persons who may be respondents under the DV Act. The facts must still establish the required domestic relationship and alleged domestic violence.

4.2 Criminal complaint– A criminal complaint may be appropriate where the evidence supports the ingredients of criminal breach of trust or another offence. The complaint should identify, as specifically as possible, the items involved, who received or retained them, how they were entrusted, when return was requested, how the request was answered, and what evidence supports the allegation of dishonest conduct. Where allegations of cruelty are made, the complaint should set out the conduct said to satisfy sections 85 and 86 of the BNS instead of relying on a general assertion.Criminal proceedings serve a different purpose from an order for return of property. Investigation may help locate items or obtain relevant records, but recovery is not automatic merely because an FIR is registered. Any search, seizure or interim custody application must rely on the correct BNSS provision and the facts supporting its use.

4.3 Civil or family-court proceedings- A civil proceeding for recovery of movable property or its value may be available, together with appropriate interim relief where the legal requirements are met. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 gives Family Courts jurisdiction over specified disputes between parties to a marriage concerning their property, subject to the statutory terms and the court’s jurisdiction. Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is narrower: it concerns property presented at or about the time of marriage that may belong jointly to both spouses. It should not be presented as a general provision for every item of a woman’s exclusive stridhan. Limitation must be assessed by reference to the remedy sought, the applicable article of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the facts giving rise to the claim. Do not state a single limitation rule for all civil, DV Act and criminal proceedings. The date of demand and refusal may be relevant, but the accrual of the cause of action and any continuing-wrong argument require case-specific analysis.

Proving Ownership and Retention

The claimant should prepare an itemised inventory describing each article, its approximate value, when and from whom it was received, and who last possessed it. Useful material may include jewellery bills, bank records, invoices, gift receipts, lists prepared under the 1985 Rules, wedding photographs and videos, messages acknowledging possession, legal notices and replies, and testimony from relatives or other witnesses. Where an item has been pledged or sold, records from the jeweller, lender or purchaser may be relevant if lawfully obtainable.Electronic messages, photographs and other digital records should be preserved in their original form, with dates, account details and surrounding context where possible. Section 63 of the BSA governs the admissibility requirements for specified electronic or digital records, including the prescribed certificate where applicable. The precise requirements depend on the type of record and how it is produced, so the claimant should obtain legal advice before filing it. The claimant must establish the facts required for the particular proceeding. Section 109 of the BSA concerns facts especially within a person’s knowledge, but it should not be described as automatically shifting the entire burden of proof to the respondent. It may be relevant to an issue about the present location or use of property once the claimant has laid an adequate factual foundation. Courts assess documentary, electronic and oral evidence together; the absence of a purchase receipt is not necessarily conclusive, but it may make a clear and consistent account more important.

Practical Difficulties and Possible Reforms

6.1 Evidence and documentation- Wedding gifts are often transferred informally, and families may not retain bills or prepare the lists contemplated by the 1985 Rules. This can make it difficult to prove the identity and value of individual items. A contemporaneous inventory, securely stored receipts and photographs, and a record of who has custody of high-value items may reduce later disputes.

6.2 Avoiding overbroad allegations-An allegation of criminal breach of trust requires proof of its statutory ingredients, including dishonest conduct. At the same time, the existence of a possible civil remedy does not automatically exclude criminal liability. In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, the Supreme Court cautioned against proceeding on vague and omnibus allegations against relatives without specific material. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, addressed safeguards relating to arrest in offences punishable up to seven years, including the need to comply with the statutory conditions. These decisions support careful, fact-specific pleadings rather than general accusations against every member of the family.

6.3 Enforcement and coordination- A return order is effective only if the property can be identified and the order implemented. Clear inventories, specific descriptions, valuation where necessary, and a reasoned request for appropriate implementation measures may assist the court. Better training for Protection Officers and legal-aid providers, standard inventory formats and compliance reporting could improve practice. These are proposals for reform, not requirements that the present legislation already imposes in every case.

Conclusion

Indian law recognises that stridhan is the woman’s property and that custody by a husband or relative does not, by itself, transfer ownership. The DV Act expressly permits a Magistrate to direct the return of stridhan, while criminal and civil remedies may also be available where their respective legal requirements are satisfied. Pratibha Rani, Rashmi Kumar and Krishna Bhattacharjee remain important authorities, but each should be cited for its precise holding and applied in light of the facts and the law governing the proceeding. In practice, a successful claim often depends on identifying the property, documenting its ownership, establishing who retained it and choosing a procedure suited to the relief sought. Accurate inventories, preserved communications, specific pleadings and effective implementation of court orders can make recovery more practical. The objective should be to ensure that a woman’s recognised property rights can be enforced without making the process unnecessarily difficult.

References–

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, especially sections 2, 3, 12, 18–23, 26 and 31.

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, especially sections 3 and 6; Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, sections 85, 86 and 316.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, sections 94, 96, 97, 106, 173, 175, 223 and 497.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, sections 63 and 109.

Hindu Succession Act, 1956, section 14; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, section 27; Family Courts Act, 1984, section 7; Limitation Act, 1963.

Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, (1985) 2 SCC 370.

Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, (1997) 2 SCC 397.

Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori, (2014) 10 SCC 736.

Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury, (2016) 2 SCC 705.

Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, (2016) 10 SCC 165.

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599.

Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 139.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1.What is stridhan under Indian law?

Stridhan refers to property exclusively owned by a woman, including qualifying gifts, jewellery, money and other assets received before, during or after marriage. A husband or in-law does not acquire ownership merely because the property is kept in the matrimonial home.

2.Can a woman recover her stridhan after divorce?

Yes. Divorce does not automatically extinguish her ownership rights. Depending on the circumstances, she may seek relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), or pursue an appropriate civil or criminal remedy.

3.Which provision of the DV Act allows a woman to recover her stridhan?

Section 19(8) empowers a Magistrate to direct the respondent to return the aggrieved person’s stridhan or other property or valuable security to which she is entitled.

4.Can a woman file a criminal complaint if her husband refuses to return her jewellery?

Yes, where the facts disclose the ingredients of an offence. Section 316 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), concerning criminal breach of trust, may apply if entrustment or dominion over the property and dishonest misappropriation or other prohibited conduct are established. Refusal alone does not automatically establish the offence.

5. What if the woman does not have bills or receipts for her jewellery?

She may rely on other relevant evidence, such as wedding photographs and videos, messages acknowledging possession, an inventory of gifts, bank records, and testimony from family members or other witnesses. The court assesses the evidence as a whole.

6. Can a woman recover stridhan kept by her mother-in-law or another female relative?

Potentially, yes. In Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, (2016) 10 SCC 165, the Supreme Court removed the restriction limiting respondents under the DV Act to adult males. The woman must still establish the statutory requirements for relief against the particular respondent.

7. Is retaining stridhan considered domestic violence?

It may amount to economic abuse under Section 3 of the DV Act where the woman is deprived of property or resources to which she is entitled under law or custom. Whether the facts establish domestic violence depends on the circumstances.

8. What can a woman do if the police refuse to register her complaint?

For information concerning a cognizable offence, she may follow the procedure under Section 173(4) of the BNSS by approaching the Superintendent of Police. If necessary, she may then apply to the Magistrate under Section 175(3), subject to the applicable procedural requirements.

9. Is a stridhan claim barred by limitation after several years?

Not necessarily. In Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury, (2016) 2 SCC 705, the Supreme Court treated the continuing deprivation of stridhan as a continuing wrong in the circumstances before it. However, limitation depends on the remedy sought and the facts of the individual case.

10. Can a woman pursue civil and criminal remedies at the same time?

Potentially, yes. The DV Act, criminal law and civil or family-court proceedings serve different purposes, and more than one remedy may be available. Their applicability depends on the facts, the legal requirements and the relief sought.