Case Summary: Krishna Kumar Gupta v. Priti Gupta (2025) | Stridhan Claims Not Maintainable Outside Matrimonial Proceedings

The case arises out of a matrimonial dispute between Krishna Kumar Gupta (Appellant-Husband) and Priti Gupta (Respondent-Wife). The parties were married, but the relationship eventually broke down, resulting in multiple legal proceedings, including claims for maintenance and return of ‘stridhan’ under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Title of Case: Krishna Kumar Gupta v. Priti Gupta

Citation: 2025:AHC:87646-DB

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Avnish Saxena

Date of Judgment: 27 May 2025

Background of the Case

The Family Court, by judgment dated 31 March 2022, directed the husband to pay Rs. 10,54,364 to the wife in lieu of the stridhan articles. This direction was made based on an application filed under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, even though no matrimonial proceedings were pending at the time.

Issues

• Whether an independent application for the return of stridhan is maintainable under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
• Whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to pass a standalone decree under Section 27 of HMA, without any matrimonial proceeding pending at the time?
• Whether the evidence relied upon by the Family Court was admissible and sufficient to establish wrongful retention of stridhan?
• Whether the Family Court’s findings disregarded material facts, including admissions made during cross-examination by the respondent?
• Whether partial compliance with the decree or lack of appeal against execution or review rejection estops the appellant from pursuing this appeal?

Appellant’s Submissions

A. On Maintainability under Section 27 HMA

Learned counsel Mr. Shalvin argued that Section 27 HMA does not confer the right to file an independent application for return of stridhan. It only permits such relief to be granted within the scope of a pending matrimonial proceeding (e.g., restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, divorce, etc.).

He relied upon the Chhattisgarh High Court judgment in Babita @ Gayatri v. Mod Prasad @ Pintu [(2018) AIR Chh 40], where it was held that:

“Section 27 itself has not been considered to be a separate and independent matrimonial proceeding so as to entitle the Court to entertain such independent application…”

B. On Merits of the Allegation

The appellant contended that the alleged incident on 24 November 2014, wherein the respondent claimed he snatched her jewellery, beat her, and ousted her from the matrimonial home, was fictitious.

During cross-examination, the respondent admitted that the appellant was in Bombay at his workplace on the date of the alleged incident, not in Karwi (place of residence).

The Family Court ignored this material fact while holding the appellant responsible for misappropriating her stridhan.

C. On Evidentiary Value of Photocopies

• The respondent submitted only photocopies of jewellery receipts from “Neelam Jewellers”.
• There was no explanation for non-production of original receipts, nor were any justifications recorded for admitting secondary evidence as per the Indian Evidence Act.
• Moreover, merely failing to object to secondary evidence cannot be treated as an admission by the appellant, who had no direct knowledge of these transactions.

Respondent’s Submissions

Learned counsel Mr. Diwakar Tiwari, assisted by Mr. Gyanendra Singh, made the following submissions:

• The respondent had sufficiently established that the jewellery items were gifted at the time of marriage, and that she was forcibly dispossessed of her stridhan when ousted from her marital home.
• Although the FIR was filed against multiple persons, including the appellant, the pendency of a criminal case for cruelty and dowry-related offences was highlighted.
• The appellant had not appealed the dismissal of his review petition before the Family Court and had partially complied with the decree. Therefore, he should be estopped from challenging the main judgment now.
• The respondent also recovered Rs. 2.10 lakh through execution proceedings.

Key Observations of the High Court

A. Improper Invocation of Section 27 HMA

The Court held that:

Section 27 HMA is not an independent remedy. It can only be exercised within the framework of a pending matrimonial cause.

Since the Family Court had already dissolved the marriage on 1 May 2023 and no decree for the return of stridhan was made therein, the standalone order dated 31 March 2022 was legally unsustainable.

The Allahabad High Court endorsed the Chhattisgarh High Court’s view in Babita @ Gayatri and the Supreme Court’s decision in Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam v. Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam [AIR 1997 SC 3562], which emphasised that Section 27 offers only a supplemental remedy, not a separate cause of action.

B. Flawed Adjudication of Facts

• The Family Court failed to consider the respondent’s admission in cross-examination that the appellant was not present during the alleged incident on 24 November 2014.
• Relying on the pendency of a criminal case, without adjudicating the actual involvement of the appellant, was described as an “oblique way” to sidestep the real issue.

C. Improper Reliance on Secondary Evidence

• The Court found no valid reason for accepting photocopies of jewellery receipts as evidence of ownership or possession.
• The learned Judge had erred in drawing an inference of admission merely because the appellant did not object to the tendering of copies, even though he could not have had personal knowledge of transactions conducted by the respondent’s family.

D. Adjustment of Maintenance Claims

• The Court recorded that the appellant had paid Rs. 6 lakh earlier and deposited Rs. 1 lakh during the hearing, making a total of Rs. 7 lakh.
• Additionally, Rs. 2.10 lakh was recovered through execution.
• These amounts were directed to be adjusted towards the respondent’s claim for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC(now Section 144 BNSS) up to 1 May 2023 (the date of dissolution of marriage).

Final Decision

• The Family Court’s order dated 31 March 2022 directing the appellant to pay Rs. 10,54,364 towards the stridhan was set aside.
• The Rs. 7 lakh voluntarily paid and Rs. 2.10 lakh recovered in execution were ordered to be adjusted against the respondent’s maintenance claim.
• The execution proceedings were declared null and void, as they arose from an order passed without jurisdiction.
• The executing court was directed to drop the execution case under Section 47 CPC.
• The Court clarified that a dismissed review petition does not bar an appeal, which is a statutory right.
• Likewise, partial execution of a decree that is later quashed cannot preclude the appellate court from exercising jurisdiction.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment provides significant clarity on:

• Scope and Limits of Section 27 HMA: It confirms that Section 27 is not an independent remedy for the return of stridhan and must be invoked within matrimonial proceedings.
• Evidentiary Rigour: Courts cannot accept photocopies or secondary evidence without adhering to the rules of evidence. Admissions inferred from non-objection are not conclusive where the opposing party lacks knowledge.
• Cross-Examination Admissions Matter: Courts must consider admissions made in cross-examination. Disregarding such material evidence amounts to perversity.
• Execution Proceedings and Null Orders: An order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity, and execution proceedings based on such a decree must fail.

Conclusion

The Krishna Kumar Gupta v. Priti Gupta decision reinforces due process in family law proceedings and underscores the importance of jurisdiction, evidentiary standards, and procedural correctness. The Allahabad High Court’s ruling ensures that Section 27 HMA is not misused as a standalone recovery tool and emphasises that even in cases involving sensitive issues like stridhan, proper legal channels and evidentiary rules must be followed.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment