Of all the disputes that follow a matrimonial breakdown, the fate of the wife's stridhan — her jewellery, gifts, and articles received before, at and after marriage — is among the most practical and the most poorly understood. Clients are routinely told the claim is "too old", or that the articles now "belong to the family". Both propositions are wrong. Stridhan is the woman's absolute property; the husband and in-laws hold it, if at all, as custodians; and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 supplies a summary machinery for its return that is not defeated by delay.
The legal character of stridhan
Classical Hindu law and modern statute converge on one point: stridhan belongs to the woman absolutely. In Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury (Supreme Court, 20 November 2015), the Court reiterated that "a woman's power of disposal, independent of her husband's control, is not confined to saudayika but extends to other properties as well," and that the husband is "only a custodian" of the articles kept with him — with no ownership rights whatsoever. The consequence is that a demand for return is not a claim for a share in family property; it is an owner's demand for her own goods.
The DV Act machinery
Why delay does not defeat the claim
The most litigated objection is limitation: the parties separated years ago, so the application is stale. Krishna Bhattacharjee answers it. Retention of stridhan is a continuing wrong — "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." The Court there also drew the line between judicial separation and divorce: a judicially separated wife remains within the Act's protection, since the marital tie subsists. The practical rule for practitioners: date the wrong from the refusal to return, not from the separation.
Building the proof
Lists and photographs: contemporaneous wedding lists, bills, jeweller invoices, bank withdrawals and photographs of ceremonies wearing the articles are the backbone of the claim.
Entrustment: plead where the articles were kept, in whose custody (husband, mother-in-law, locker), and when return was demanded and refused — a legal notice demanding return is valuable groundwork.
Precision over volume: courts view inflated, unverifiable lists with suspicion, and exaggeration damages the credible core of the claim.
A stridhan claim can travel alongside proceedings for maintenance, residence orders and protection orders in the same Section 12 application, and alongside a criminal complaint under Section 316 BNS where dishonest misappropriation can be shown. Chosen and sequenced carefully, these remedies restore to the woman what was always hers in law.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly counts as stridhan?
Property of every description received by a woman before marriage, at marriage, during ceremonies, and during the subsistence of marriage from her own or her husband's side — jewellery, cash, clothes, appliances, even property purchased from her earnings. Ownership vests absolutely in her; her power of disposal is independent of her husband's control.
Which DV Act provisions cover the return of stridhan?
Section 12 is the gateway application. Section 18(ii) empowers a protection order prohibiting the respondent from alienating the woman's assets including her stridhan; Section 19(8) enables a direction to return her stridhan and other property; and monetary loss caused by its deprivation can be addressed under Section 20. Interim directions are available under Section 23.
Is a stridhan claim barred by limitation if raised years after separation?
The Supreme Court in Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury (2015) held that retention of stridhan is a continuing offence: so long as the woman's status as an aggrieved person subsists and the articles remain with the husband, she can put forth her claim. The Court also held that a decree of judicial separation, unlike divorce, does not end her status as an aggrieved person.
Can criminal law be invoked in addition to the DV Act?
Yes. Dishonest misappropriation of stridhan by a person entrusted with it constitutes criminal breach of trust — Section 406 IPC, now Section 316 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The DV proceeding and the criminal complaint address different wrongs and may proceed in parallel; courts do, however, discourage exaggerated or duplicative lists of articles.