The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld a Family Court order directing a husband to return his wife's Stridhan (property gifted to her at the time of marriage) or pay ₹2 lakh if the articles cannot be returned. The Court held that merely because the wife could not produce bills or receipts, her claim could not be rejected, particularly when she consistently stated that those documents remained with her in-laws.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from a Family Court judgment dated August 19, 2025, which partly allowed the wife's application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Family Court directed the husband to return articles including gold ornaments, utensils, furniture, an almirah, sofa set and other household items claimed as Stridhan. In the alternative, it ordered payment of ₹2 lakh.
Challenging that decision, the husband argued before the High Court that there was no documentary proof showing that the alleged Stridhan had ever been entrusted to him. He also contended that the Family Court had wrongly appreciated the evidence on record.
Court's Observations
A Division Bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput examined the evidence and found no reason to interfere with the Family Court's findings.
The Bench noted that the wife had consistently stated that the bills and receipts relating to the Stridhan articles were in the possession of her in-laws. It observed that this was a plausible explanation because such documents are commonly retained by the husband's family after marriage.
The Court observed:
“Normally, after the marriage, the bills and other receipts are kept by the wife's in-laws.”
The Bench further explained that household articles, gold and silver ornaments and other customary gifts presented to the bride during marriage ordinarily constitute Stridhan. Once the wife specifically sought the return of those articles, it was for the husband to clearly deny those claims, which he had failed to do.
Why the Compensation Was Fixed at ₹2 Lakh
The High Court also agreed with the Family Court's assessment that the marriage had taken place in 2017 and that most household articles had depreciated in value over the years, except for the gold ornaments. For that reason, the Family Court had reduced the alternative compensation from the claimed ₹4 lakh to ₹2 lakh. The High Court found this reasoning to be justified.
Court's Decision
Dismissing the husband's appeal, the High Court held that the Family Court's findings were neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record.
The Bench observed:
“Merely because the wife could not produce the bills or receipts... it cannot be inferred that the Stridhan articles... were not given at the time of marriage.”
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the direction requiring the husband to return the Stridhan articles or, if unable to do so, pay ₹2 lakh to the wife.
Case Details
Case Title: Tamradhwaj Gayakwad v. Jyoti Gayakwad
Case Number: FA(MAT) No. 355 of 2025
Judges: Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Decision Date: 06 July 2026
