S. Vimala, J.

1. "We do not want to be branded as criminals, especially, when we are happy to be known as the law abiding citizens" - so saying the father-in-law and mother-in-law (revision petitioners) of the respondent/daughter-in-law filed an application before the Sub Court, Tambaram, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of taking inventory of the articles, as described in the schedule to the petition and to place them to the custody of the Court, for passing suitable order for due return of those articles to the parties concerned.

1.1. When the Honourable Supreme Court pointed out that in family matters, pending lis causes emotional fragmentation and delay can feed it to grow, why the matrimonial Court declined to entertain the reasonable request of the in-laws to hand over the property to the daughter-in-law, is the issue raised in this case.

1.2. It is a classic case of irritable, irksome and unrelenting priests even when the Presiding deity is ready with a boon to the devotee, as though the law provided the space but not the Court.

1.3. Procrastination can be the greatest assassin of the lis in matrimonial matters. This has been pointed out in the case of Vimal K. vs. Veeraswamy, K. 1991 (1) SCR 904, which the trial Court has omitted to take note of. The relevant observation reads as under:

"It leads to the cold refrigeration of the hidden feelings, if still left. The delineation of the lis by the family judge must reveal awareness and balance. Dilatory tactics by any of the parties has to be sternly dealt with for family court judge has to be alive to the fact that the lis before him is an emotional fragmentation and delay can feed it to grow."

2. The battle to get back the shridhana property is an ever ending battle for the daughter-in-law is the history written sofar. When such is the order of the day and when the in-laws come forward to return the shridana property to the daughter-in-law, the Court has declined to entertain the petition, which is under challenge in this revision petition.

3. Shridhana property is the separate property of the wife on proof that she entrusted the property or dominion over the shridhana property to her husband or any other member of the family.

3.1. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this point is relevant.

(i) Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Another (1985) 98 L.W. 812 : 1985 2 SCC 370.

"It is, therefore, manifest that the position of stridhan of a Hindu married woman's property during coverture is absolutely clear and unambiguous; she is the absolute owner of such property and can deal with it in any manner she likes "she may spend the whole of it or give it away at her own pleasure by gift or will without any reference to her husband. Ordinarily, the husband has no right or interest in it with the sole exception that in times of extreme distress, as in famine, illness or the like, the husband can utilise it but he is morally bound to restore it or its value when he is able to do so. It may be further noted that this right is purely personal to the husband and the property so received by him in marriage cannot be proceeded against even in execution of a decree for debt."

"A pure and simple entrustment of stridhan without creating any rights in the husband excepting putting the articles in his possession does not entitle him to use the same to the detriment of his wife without her consent. The husband has no justification for not returning the said articles as and when demanded by the wife nor can he burden her with losses of business by using the said property which was never intended by her while entrusting possession of stridhan. On the allegations in the complaint, the husband is no more and no less than a pure and simple custodian acting on behalf of his wife and if he diverts the entrusted property elsewhere or for different purposes he takes a clear risk of prosecution under Section 406 of the IPC. On a parity of reasoning, it is manifest that