top of page

Anoushka Talukdar

Show Author Details


Mrs. Pratibha Rani, the appellant, filed a lawsuit at the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate of Ludhiana against her husband and her in-laws. She had been married in accordance with all Hindu rituals, and her husband's family had asked for dowry from her parents throughout the entire wedding as payment for the union. This demand was granted, and a dowry of jewellery valued at Rs.60,000 was provided. Even yet, the respondent continued to mistreat the appellant and eventually isolated her. Later, when the appellant sought the given articles as part of her "Stridhan", the respondent refused to give them back, claiming they were part of her dowry. The appeal was dismissed by both the lower court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court on the grounds that the case did not fall within Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code because the husband's management of the articles did not amount to an assignment as defined by the law. The High Court supported its position by citing the Vinod Kumar Sethi v. State of Punjab case. 




Section 405

Dowry Law

bottom of page