The exclusive domain of the wife over Stridhan property and the obligation of the husband and in-laws to return such property to the wife on her demand.

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. B Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Also heard Mr BJ Dutta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that the respondent No. 2 Pranita Devi was married to the present petitioner on 04.10.2006 as per Hindu rites and rituals and certain amounts of articles like furniture, gold ornament etc. were given in her marriage but unfortunately, their marriage did not survive long due to torture of husband both mentally and physically for not bringing adequate stridhan articles and also for his demand of Rs. 3 lacs. The respondent/wife returned to her parental house on 27.03.2007 for such torture and after return to her parental house, she sent her father to bring her Stridhan articles back from the house of accused petitioner on 15.06.2007 but as they have refused to give the same so, the respondent/wife filed a complaint before the SDJM (M), Bajali with an allegation of misappropriation of Stridhan property by the accused person/the petitioner and the same was registered as CR Case No. 34/07 u/s 406 of the IPC and the learned trial Court upon examination of the complainant took cognizance of the offence u/s 406 of the IPC against the accused petitioner.

3. Pursuant to the cognizance of offence against the accused petitioner, charge u/s 406 IPC was framed against him and the same was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, respondent/wife examined as many as 5 witnesses in support of her case including herself whereas the defence side adduce no evidence on their part. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court held the accused petitioner guilty u/s 406 of IPC and sentenced him to RI for 6 (six) months. On appeal being preferred, the learned appellate Court reduced the sentence to RI 3 (three) months and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default S.I for 2(two) months with a direction to pay the 50% of the fine amount to the complainant.

5. As against the findings on two forums, the present revision has been preferred by the accused petitioner on the ground that such appreciation and findings by both the Courts below is not on proper perspective of law and facts. It has been contended that there is lack of evidence to establish about the misappropriation of Stridhan on the part of the present petitioner even though, the entrustment can be inferred. That apart, it has been contended that the respondent/wife has the habit of filing of false case for which she also filed a complaint case u/s 498A, which was registered as PRC Case No. 99/07 u/s 498A of the IPC but the accused/petitioner was acquitted from the charge. On the other hand, the respondent/wife also refused to obey the decree of restitution of conjugal rights that was filed by the petitioner vide TS No. 4/12 in the Court of Munsiff, Bajali dated 21.12.2013. Over and above, it is also submitted that there is still scope of re-union between the parties for which the petitioner is still waiting.

6. I have heard the submission of learned counsel for the respondent who has submitted that evidence on record is sufficient to prove the offence as against the accused petitioner and there is no perversity in the decision so arrived by the learned Court below and such a findings has been arrived on due appreciation of the evidence on record. Bearing in mind, the above submissions, I have also gone through the evidence on record and the appreciation that was made by the Court. It can be noted that the respondent/wife in support of her case has examined herself as well as her father to the effect that soon after the marriage due to the conduct of the present petitioner who harassed her mentally and physically, she has to return her parental house in a compelling situation by leaving her Stridhan articels in the house of present petitioner. Subsequently, on their appr