Back
Directs Return of 100 Sovereigns Gold and Car in Death Case
The has ordered the and return of 100 sovereigns of gold jewellery and a Volvo car—valuables given as —to the father of a woman who died by suicide due to harassment. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, presiding over two connected petitions, held that the investigating officer had failed in her under , to seize articles and transfer them to the deceased woman's heirs.
The Tragic Background
Rithanya, 27, married Kavin Kumar on . Shortly after the wedding, her husband and his family allegedly began demanding additional —including more gold, a car, and cash for business. Despite Rithanya's parents fulfilling these demands, the harassment continued. On , Rithanya consumed poison and died. A sent via WhatsApp voice message revealed that all the articles were locked in her cupboard at her matrimonial home.
The registered FIR No.189/2025 under , and after investigation, filed a charging the accused under , along with . The case was committed to the , as S.C. No.74/2026.
The Legal Battle: Two Petitions, One Goal
Rithanya's father, R. Annadurai, filed two petitions. The first challenged the 's docket order dated , which rejected his application for on the ground that no jewels were seized from the accused or deposited before the court. The second petition sought a direction for a new investigating officer to conduct further investigation into the aspect.
Annadurai’s counsel, , argued that the investigating officer had ignored CCTV footage and audio evidence showing the transfer. He emphasized that the deceased's voice message clearly indicated where the jewels were kept, yet the police failed to recover them.
The government, represented by , filed a counter stating that only a Skoda car, a mobile phone, and a pesticide bottle were seized during investigation. The police maintained that the allegations were unfounded, citing a Revenue Divisional Officer's report that found no demand.
The Court's Observation: is Mandatory
Justice Ilanthiraiyan scrutinized Section 6 of the Prohibition Act, which mandates that any received by someone other than the woman must be for her benefit, and upon her death without children, transferred to her parents. The court noted:
"It is clear that whatever thereceived at the time of marriage or after the marriage or before marriage, shall be transferred to the parents of the deceased if there are no children involved. In the case on hand, admittedly, the deceased had no children through the first accused. Therefore, the entireweighing 100 sovereigns of gold, Volvo car which was given asto the first accused ought to have been recovered by the fourth respondent."
The judge highlighted that the investigating officer had
"rightly filed
for the charges under Section 85 and 108 of
, Section 3(1) and 4 of
,"
but the
"only failure on the part of the Investigating Officer is that she did not recover any jewels and car which were given as
as contemplated under Section 6 of
Prohibition Act."
Final Order: Gold and Car to the Father
Rejecting the prayer for a new investigation because were already complete and trial had begun, the court instead directed the , to seize the articles—including 100 sovereigns of gold jewellery and the Volvo car (Regn. No. TN-39-DH-3949)—and hand them over to Annadurai in accordance with law. The court also allowed the petitioner to mark the CCTV footage and audio as evidence during trial.
Justice Ilanthiraiyan disposed of both petitions with these directions, reinforcing the legal obligation of law enforcement to proactively recover property and protect the rights of victims' families.
Implications
This judgment underscores that mere filing of a case is insufficient; the police must actively trace and seize articles to ensure their return to the lawful heirs. The ruling serves as a reminder of the investigative duties under the Prohibition Act and strengthens the mechanism for financial restitution in death cases.
