The division bench of the Delhi High Court, in a recent decision, held that, the “Stridhan” of a woman cannot be seized during the course of completing assessment proceedings against her husband. While directing the Department to release the jewellery seized, the Court expressed a view that since the wife is the owner in respect of ”stridhan”, it cannot be attached.
Coming to the facts of the case, the Department officials, in consequence to a search,attached certain assets of the petitioners husband. During the course of search of the bank locker, the jewellery of the petitioner was also seized. The petitioner claimed that she is the owner of the jewellery which was received by her at the time of her marriage and therefore, it cannot be included in the undisclosed income of her husband and therefore, must be released. While completing the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer also noted that the jewellery actually belong to the petitioner.The Department did not responded to the petitioners request to release the jewellery. Aggrieved with thedetached attitude of the department, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court.
The petitioner relied upon the circulars of 1985 and 1994 to say that when such small quantities are recovered, no follow-up action is necessary and that in any case, the jewellery is her stridhan.
While allowing the petition, the Court observed that “This court is of opinion that the respondent’s recalcitrance is not mere inaction; it is one of deliberate harassment. Unarguably, the first round of assessment proceedings culminated in no addition of the jewellery or its value in the hands of the petitioner’s husband. The matter ought to have rested there, because the further proceedings were at the behest of the petitioner’s husband who was aggrieved by the additions made (and not aggrieved by the decision on issues in his favour). The ITAT’s decision to proceed de novo, nevertheless strengthened the respondents’ obduracy and hardened their resolve not to release the jewellery. The de novo order did not result in any addition on that aspect at all; still the respondents cling to another ingenious argument- that till the petitioners’ husband’s tax demands are satisfied, they can detain the jewellery.”
“The respondents’ rationale or justification is entirely insubstantial. The petitioner says that she was married in mid 1960s and her daughters were born in 1967- she was 70 when these proceedings were started. The respondents do not deny this. In the circumstances, the further explanation that the jewellery belonged to her and represented accumulation of gifts received from family members over a period of time, and also acquired during the subsistence of her marriage is reasonable and logical.” The Court observed that the nature of ownership of a woman’s Stridhanis explained by the Supreme Court in its decision Pratibha Rani vs. SurajKumar 1985 (2) SCC 70, in which it was held that the wife has the ownership over such valuables.
“The petitioner’s explanation is justified and reasonable. Like in Ashok Chadha (supra), her contention that the gold jewellery was acquired through gifts made by relatives and other family members over a long period of time, is in keeping with prevailing customs and habits. The obdurate refusal of the respondents to release the jewellery constitutes deprivation of property without lawful authority and is contrary to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.”
Read the full text of the Judgment below.
