'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court

Husband can't take wife's belongings/ jewellery without permission- Delhi HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court has stated that it is against the law for a husband to remove his wife's jewellery or other household items without her consent. No one may be permitted to impose their own laws, the Justice Amit Mahajan Bench further stated.

In a case where the woman claimed that her belongings were stolen while she was abroad, the Bench made these observations when denying anticipatory bail to the husband.

The husband was the subject of a FIR under section 380 IPC.

The petitioner (husband) is married to the complainant, and the FIR was filed against him as a result of a matrimonial conflict, according to the husband's attorney's argument before the court. He added that the residence in question is rented.

The petitioner further argued that the wife left the home of her own free will and that he was forced to give up the tenancy; as a result, the aforementioned items were taken out of the house.

However, the wife's attorney claimed that after spending three days at her parents' home, the complainant's wife returned to find the house locked and all of the furniture gone, prompting her to file the irate complaint. The wife couldn't be expelled and the house was the marriage home, it was further asserted.

The wife's attorney added that the wife bought domestic items such the TV, laptop, cash jewellery, etc., and that these items have nothing to do with the case currently underway between the parties and are connected to istridhan. The IO of the case informed the court that another witness had verified the landlord's claim that the spouse had taken possession of the household.

Even though the petitioner is the complainant's husband, the Bench noted from the outset that he is not legally permitted to remove the household belongings.

The husband has not cooperated with the investigation, and the articles have not yet been found, the court further stated.

The court declined to grant anticipatory bail because it believed the accusations made against the husband were serious.

Akshay Dhingra vs NCT of Delhi 

Latest Legal News