Chhattisgarh HC: Absence of Bills or Receipts Does Not Defeat a Wife's Stridhan Claim

The High Court of Chhattisgarh affirmed a Family Court direction to return stridhan or pay Rs. 2 lakh, holding that in-laws typically retain marriage receipts and a husband must specifically deny stridhan allegations in his pleadings.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur dismissed a husband's appeal against a Family Court order requiring him to return his wife's stridhan — comprising gold and silver ornaments, household articles, utensils, a sofa set, an almirah and a bed — or, in the alternative, pay Rs. 2,00,000/-. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, who authored the judgment, held that the absence of bills or receipts could not defeat the wife's claim where the husband had failed to specifically deny the stridhan averments in his written statement and where it is ordinarily the in-laws who retain such documents after a marriage.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Tamradhwaj Gayakwad and Jyoti Gayakwad were married on 30 June 2017 at Village Mudhpar, District Bemetara, in accordance with customary rites. A daughter was born of the marriage and is in Jyoti's custody.

Jyoti filed an application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, in Civil Suit No. 900/2023. She alleged that after their daughter's birth, Tamradhwaj and his family subjected her to cruelty by demanding dowry, making derogatory remarks about the birth of a female child, and harassing her for insufficient dowry. She further alleged that Tamradhwaj induced her to transfer money towards the down payment and repayment of a car loan by assuring her he would bear the liability, though loan instalments were deducted from her account. She lodged a complaint at Mahila Police Station, Sector-6, Bhilai on 28 December 2021.

Jyoti pleaded that her stridhan — household articles, gold and silver ornaments and cash — remained in Tamradhwaj's possession. She sought return of those articles or, in the alternative, payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- as their assessed value.

Tamradhwaj denied the allegations in his written statement. He contended that the car loan was taken with both parties' consent and that he had been repaying it since their separation. He submitted that jewellery gifted by his family was already with Jyoti, that there was no documentary proof of the alleged stridhan, and that Jyoti retained access to the household cupboard. He also claimed he had discharged certain liabilities incurred for the marriage.

What the Family Court Decided

The Family Court framed issues on whether the stridhan articles listed in the application were given to Tamradhwaj at the time of marriage and whether Jyoti had the right to recover them. It found Issue No. 1 proved, concluding that Tamradhwaj had not categorically denied the averments regarding the stridhan articles set out in Jyoti's prayer clause.

On the question of value, the Family Court took note that the marriage was solemnised in 2017 and that, except for gold ornaments, the value of other articles would naturally depreciate over eight years. It therefore declined to award the full Rs. 4,00,000/- claimed. Instead, it partly allowed the application: Tamradhwaj was directed to return the stridhan articles and, if unable to do so, to pay Rs. 2,00,000/-.

Tamradhwaj challenged this judgment and decree by filing FA(MAT) No. 355 of 2025 under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Submissions on Appeal

Before the Division Bench, Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, counsel for Tamradhwaj, argued that the Family Court's findings were perverse, erroneous and contrary to the evidence. He contended that the Family Court failed to appreciate that Jyoti had treated Tamradhwaj with cruelty and was unwilling to reside with him. His principal submission was that no documentary evidence — no bills, no receipts, no cogent material — had been produced to prove that the stridhan articles were ever entrusted to or remained in Tamradhwaj's custody.

Mr. Adarsh Rajput, counsel for Jyoti, supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that there was no specific denial by Tamradhwaj of having received the stridhan. He argued that the Family Court had assessed the evidence on the conduct of both parties and that its findings did not warrant interference.

How the Bench Reasoned

The Division Bench examined whether the Family Court's findings on Issue No. 1 could be characterised as perverse. It affirmed the approach taken by the trial court on the burden of proof: the burden lay on Jyoti to establish that the stridhan was given to Tamradhwaj, and she deposed that the articles were handed over at the time of marriage and that the bills and receipts were with her in-laws.

On the central submission that no receipts or bills had been produced, the Bench was direct: “normally, after the marriage, the bills and other receipts are kept by the wife's in-laws.” Jyoti had categorically stated in her deposition that the receipts were in the possession of her in-laws. The Bench held that this could not lead to the inference that the stridhan articles were never given.

The Bench relied on the common course of conduct at Indian marriages: household articles, gold and silver ornaments, utensils and customary articles are given to the bride as stridhan. Items such as a bed and a dressing table, too, form part of customary articles given at the time of marriage. Critically, once Jyoti had specifically pleaded in the prayer clause of her application for the return of stridhan articles or payment of Rs. 4,00,000/-, Tamradhwaj was required to specifically deny those averments. His failure to do so was a material consideration.

The Bench rejected Tamradhwaj's contention that the Family Court's appreciation of evidence was perverse. It held that “merely because the wife could not produce the bills or receipts” — given that she had stated those documents were with her in-laws — it could not be said that the stridhan was not given at the time of marriage. The findings of the Family Court were affirmed as neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal on 6 July 2026. The judgment and decree passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg on 19 August 2025 in Civil Suit No. 900/2023 stands affirmed. Tamradhwaj is required to return the stridhan articles to Jyoti or, if he is unable to do so, to pay her Rs. 2,00,000/-. The court directed that a decree be drawn up accordingly.