( 1 ) THIS appeal has been placed before this bench pursuant to an order dated 19-4-1995 passed by a two-Judge bench in the following terms:

"a decade has gone by since Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar - a decision by a majority of 2:1 has governed the scene. Having regard to its wider ramifications and its actual working in the last decade, we are of the view that a fresh look to the ratio in that case is necessary. We, therefore, order that this case be placed before a three-Judge bench. "

( 2 ) THIS appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Allahabad High court dated 19-6-1992 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 44 of 1992. The admitted facts are that the appellant was married to the respondent on 7/7/1973 at Lucknow according to the Hindu rites and rituals. The parties have three children from the wedlock. It is not in dispute that there was estrangement in the marital relationship between the husband and the wife. It is the case of the appellant that she was treated with cruelty and was driven out of the marital home along with the three children. She was constrained to lay proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant was given jewellery, i. e. , gold and silver ornaments and other household goods enumerated in Annexures I and II and also cash by her parents, brothers and other relatives at different ceremonies prior to her marriage and after the marriage at the time of bidai (farewell ). She claims that all these articles constituted her stridhana properties and were kept in the custody of the respondent-husband. The respondent had asked the appellant to entrust for safe custody all the jewellery and cash mentioned in Annx. I, to his father with the promise that on her demand whenever made, they would be returned. Accordingly, she had entrusted them to the appellant at Lucknow in the presence of three named witnesses. Similarly, the household goods mentioned in Annx. II were entrusted by the parents of the appellant to the respondent at the time of farewell in the presence of three named witnesses. They lived together in Delhi in her in-laws house. The appellant alleged in the complaint that she was treated with cruelty in the matrimonial home and ultimately on 24/7/1978/25/7/1978 she and the children were thrown out from the matrimonial home under duress and at the peril of their lives. Accordingly, she was driven out from the matrimonial home without getting an opportunity to take with her stridhana properties enumerated in Annexures I and II.

( 3 ) SHE filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Even thereafter she went to Cochin whereat the respondent-husband was working, on 9/10/1986 and requested him to restitute her into the conjugal society along with the children. He promised that he would do it provided she withdrew her application for restitution of conjugal rights. He also promised to return the jewellery and other valuables mentioned in Annexures I and II entrusted to him. Even after her withdrawing the application, on 21/10/1986, he did not take her into the conjugal society. Therefore, she was again constrained to file second application on 18/11/1986 for restitution of conjugal rights. She also filed application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") for maintenance. Since these attempts proved unsuccessful, she made a demand on 5/12/1987 to return the jewellery as detailed in Annx. I and household goods mentioned in Annx. II but the respondent flatly refused to return her stridhana properties. Consequently, she filed a private complaint on 10/9/1990.

( 4 ) AFTER recording her statement under Section 200 of the Code, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process to the respondent. While the respondent appeared in the court, he filed an application under Section 482 of the Code in the High court to quash the proceedings