1985 (3) TMI 60 - SC - Income Tax

Whether or not a clear allegation of entrustment and misappropriation of properties was made by the appellant in her complaint? Whether the High Court justified in quashing the complaint at that stage? Held that - The allegations of the complainant in this appeal and the appeals before the Allahabad and the Punjab and Haryana High Court show that it is not so but is pure figment of the High Courts imagination as a result of which the High Courts completely shut their eyes to the fact that the husband could also be guilty under s. 405/406, IPC, in view of the clear allegations made in the complaint. In other words, the High Courts simply refuse to believe that there can be any such entrustment and even if it is so, no offence is committed. Such an approach amounts to a serious distortion of the criminal law, resulting in perpetrating grave and substantial miscarriage of justice to the wife at the hands of the High Courts. We cannot countenance such a wrong and perverse approach. For the reasons given above, we are satisfied that as the complaint prima facie disclosed an offence of criminal breach of trust, as defined in s. 405/406 of the Indian Penal Code, the High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint. Appeal allowed, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the complaint filed by the appellant and direct that the accused may be summoned, if not already summoned, and put on trial in accordance with law.

Issues Involved:
1. Nature and character of stridhan.
2. Entrustment and misappropriation of stridhan.
3. Applicability of Section 406 IPC in matrimonial disputes.
4. Interpretation of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act.
5. The concept of matrimonial home and joint possession.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature and Character of Stridhan:
The judgment delves into the nature and character of stridhan, emphasizing that it is the absolute property of a married woman during coverture. Citing various classical texts and legal commentaries, the judgment states:
"Neither the husband, nor the son, nor the father, nor the brother, has power to use or to alienate the legal property of a woman... she is the absolute owner of such property and can deal with it in any manner she likes."

2. Entrustment and Misappropriation of Stridhan:
The court addressed the issue of entrustment and misappropriation of stridhan by the husband and his family. The complainant alleged that her dowry articles worth Rs. 60,000 were entrusted to her husband and his family, who refused to return them. The judgment notes:
"A perusal of the allegations made in the complaint undoubtedly makes out a positive case of the accused having dishonestly misappropriated the articles handed over to them in a fiduciary capacity."

3. Applicability of Section 406 IPC in Matrimonial Disputes:
The judgment critically examines the applicability of Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust) in matrimonial disputes. It rejects the Punjab and Haryana High Court's view in Vinod Kumar Sethi v. State of Punjab, which held that stridhan becomes joint property upon entering the matrimonial home. The Supreme Court states:
"We are clearly of the opinion that the mere factum of the husband and wife living together does not entitle either of them to commit a breach of criminal law... if the husband or any other member of his family commits such an offence, they will be liable to punishment for the offence of criminal breach of trust under ss. 405 and 406, IPC."

4. Interpretation of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act:
The judgment clarifies that these sections do not abolish the concept of stridhan. It states:
"We are of the opinion that this view of the High Court is not legally sustainable because neither of the two Acts... go to the extent of providing that the claim of a woman on the basis of stridhan is completely abolished."

5. The Concept of Matrimonial Home and Joint Possession:
The court rejects the concept that stridhan becomes joint property in the matrimonial home. It criticizes the Punjab and Haryana High Court's view that the matrimonial home connotes joint possession of property. The Supreme Court asserts:
"We fail to understand the logic of the reasoning adopted by the High Court in investing the pure and simple stridhan of the wife with the character of a joint property... The husband has no interest in the same and the entrustment to him is just like something which the wife keeps in bank."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court overruled the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Vinod Kumar's case and the Allahabad High Court, emphasizing that stridhan remains the exclusive property of the wife and can be subject to criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC if misappropriated by the husband or his family. The judgment underscores the importance of recognizing the wife's absolute ownership of stridhan and the applicability of criminal law in cases of its misappropriation. The appeal was allowed, and the complaint was restored for trial.

← Previous Next →