Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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