Lack Of Boundaries In Sale Deed Not Fatal To Title If Plot Number & Parent Title Are Sufficiently Identifiable: Calcutta High Court Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court Identical Wills Executed By Spouses On Same Day Not Necessarily 'Mutual Wills' Restricting Power Of Alienation: Delhi High Court Written Notice Not Mandatory For Revoking Permission Under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act: Gujarat High Court Wife Cannot Maintain Complaint Against Husband Under Senior Citizens Act; Not Intended For Spousal Disputes: Karnataka High Court Mere Presence At Scene Or Facilitation Without Intent To Aid Crime Does Not Amount To Abetment: Delhi High Court Offences Under IT Act Punishable With 3 Years Imprisonment Are Bailable Under Section 77B: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In KCA Data Theft Case Premature Release Can't Be Denied Citing Section 435 CrPC If Sentence Under Central Act Is Already Served: Madras High Court Suppression Of Higher Qualification To Secure Job Reserved For Lower Education Is Foundational Fraud, Sympathy Has No Role: Supreme Court MBBS Admissions | Candidate Using NIOS Marks To Meet 50% Eligibility Cannot Claim State Govt School Quota: Orissa High Court High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court Section 69 IEA | Onus On Propounder To Lead Secondary Evidence & Remove Suspicious Circumstances If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead: Telangana High 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