Krishna Bhattacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Ors

28.01.2020.

This petition is filed by the original complainant who had approached the Court of the learned Magistrate making grievances of ill-treatment and retention of Streedhan by her husband and his other family members. She filed a complaint on 22.05.2010 to the C.D.P.O., office of the District Inspector, Social Welfare & Social Education, West Tripura. A case was registered against the husband before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Agartala. Complainant requested for return of the Streedhan. According to the complainant at the time of marriage she was given various articles and certain gold ornaments by way of Streedhan by her relatives of which the valuable articles and ornaments were taken away by the brother-in-law and his wife for safe keeping. Subsequently, matrimonial disputes surfaced between the parties. An attempt of settlement was made in presence of three lawyers. Pursuant to settlement the husband and wife started residing separately in the rented premises. She left for her parental home for a visit. When she returned to the rented house, she found that the door was locked. The landlady and her husband refused to open the door. According to the complainant cash of `5,000 and some of her ornaments which were in the nature of Streedhan were lying inside an almirah in the said room. The husband never returned these articles upon which she had filed the said complaint for retrieving her Streedhan articles.

Complainant was examined as PW-1. In her deposition she had stated that the relatives of the husband had demanded dowry from her soon after marriage. She was also harassed by the family members. A few days after the marriage she was instructed to handover her ornaments to her sister-in-law which she had done which were never returned to her. She further stated that she had resided with her husband in a rented premises for about a month and twenty days after which she went to her parents house and returned after 3 or 4 days when she found that the rented room was locked. She was told that the husband had locked the room and taken away keys with him. She was cross-examined at length.

Complainant's brother Satyabrata Bhattacharjee was examined as PW-2. He stated that the gold ornaments of his sister were kept by her sister-in-law. PW-3 and PW-4 were the neighbours and they obviously did not have any personal knowledge.

The husband was examined as Defence Witness No.1. He denied the allegations of having detained the wife's Streedhan. He stated that the keys to the almirah were in possession of his wife and he did not know whether there were any ornaments kept in the said cupboard.

On the basis of such evidence, the learned Magistrate vide judgment dated 08.09.2016 held that the aggrieved person could establish that she had entrusted her gold ornaments to the relatives of her husband and that she had not received the ornaments back and that it was the respondent, i.e. her husband was still having the custody of these ornaments. She, therefore, directed the husband to handover the gold ornaments to the aggrieved person.

The husband challenged the said judgment of the learned Magistrate in an appeal filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura. The appeal was allowed vide the impugned judgment. The learned Judge noted that the compromise had taken place between the husband and wife in presence of three advocates but none of them was examined before the Court. From the complaint dated 22.05.2010 lodged by the aggrieved person the learned Judge deduced that she herself was in the possession of the key to the almirah. It was for this reason that she was insisting that the lock to the room be opened by the landlady and her husband. The aggrieved person had also not given the details of the gold ornaments which she had left in the rented house. She merely stated that she had left some of the gold ornaments in the said house without giving full details of such ornaments. Inter alia on such grounds the appeal was allowed. The judgment of the learned Magistrate was set aside. It is against this judgment that the aggrieved person has filed this revision petition.

Appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Ms. S. Nandy submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a serious error. The Magistrate had given cogent reasons for believing the version of the aggrieved person that the gold ornaments which were in the nature of a Streedhan were retained by the husband and despite demand never returned. She submitted that there was no evidence suggesting that the wife had the key to the almirah where the ornaments were kept. Husband never claimed that such ornaments were returned.

On the other hand, learned counsel Ms. Nibedita Ghosh for the respondent opposed this petition contending that this petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code where the powers would be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. Even if this petition is treated to be one of criminal revision, this Court would not re-appreciate the evidence. She further submitted that the appellate Court has taken into consideration all relevant aspects of the matter while allowing the appeal of the respondent. This petition may, therefore, be dismissed.

As noted both sides have put forth conflicting versions. According to the wife soon after the marriage her brother-in-law and his wife took custody of her gold ornaments which were given to her by her parents. Sometime thereafter matrimonial disputes forced the husband and wife to live separately. An attempt was made to settle the disputes. Pursuant to such settlement the husband and wife started residing together in a rented premises. The wife went to her parent's home and when she returned a few days later found the rented room was locked. She had complained to the landlady and her husband that some of her gold ornaments are lying in the cupboard inside the room. They, however, refused to open the door.

According to the husband, it was the wife who had the key to the cupboard. He was unaware whether the gold ornaments were inside the room or not.

29.01.2020.

The appellate Court has thus appreciated the evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the aggrieved person the wife had not established the ornaments which were her Streedhan were in the custody of her husband which he refused to return. The view adopted by the appellate Court is a plausible one. The appellate Court has taken note of certain inconsistencies in the version of the aggrieved person. She has not explained the transition of the ornaments from the custody of her brother-in-law and his wife to the same being in the almirah of the rented premises where the husband and wife started residing separately. Her statement that some of the ornaments are still inside the cupboard also makes the entire issue uncertain and ascertainment of the left over ornaments impossible. In fact, the version of the husband was that the wife had the keys to the cupboard and he was totally unaware about what ornaments may be lying inside. All in all this is not a case where in exercise of revision powers the decision of the appellate Court requires to be reversed.

In the result, revision petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.