# Krishna Kumar Gupta v. Priti Gupta

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1419
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-27
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 1116 of 2024
- **Bench:** Arindam Sinha, Avnish Saxena
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-kumar-gupta-v-priti-gupta-53479
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 498A & 326B - Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 - Section 3⁄4 - Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 - Section 27 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Appeal
challenged
order
by
which
appellant
directed to pay amount as stree dhan -
Earlier, respondent got maintenance order
- Appellant paid Rs. 6 lakhs and tendered
Rs. 1 lakh via demand draft - Impugned
judgment shows photocopies of jewellery
receipts as secondary evidence without
stating reasons for their admissibility -
Respondent alleged that appellant forcibly
snatched her jewellery, assaulted her, but
in FIR, allegation was of conspiracy
involving
seven
accused,
including
appellant
-
In
cross-examination,
respondent admitted appellant was not
present during incident, ignored by trial
court - Trial court concluded appellant did
not dispute receipts and admitted price of
jewellery
mentioned
in
receipts
-
However,
receipts
being
photocopies,
respondent claims receipts related to
jewellery gifted to her as stree dhan -
Appellant, having no knowledge of these
transactions, cannot deemed to have
admitted them - Document must be
proved by its maker or witness to its
making - Mere absence of objection does
not establish appellant's possession of
stree dhan jewellery - Proof of possession
needed to be established - Return of stree
dhan
determined
at
trial
within
proceedings under Act, not independently
through application under Section 27.
(Para 2, 6, 8)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. Priti Gupta
1419
33.
Accordingly,
the
delay
condonation application as well as review
application both stand rejected.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1419
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

First Appeal No. 1116 of 2024

Krishna Kumar Gupta ...Appellant
Versus
Priti Gupta ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ambrish Kumar Pandey, Sri Lok Nath
Shukla

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Gyanendra Singh

Civil Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 498A & 326B - Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 - Section 3⁄4 - Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 - Section 27 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Appeal
challenged
order
by
which
appellant
directed to pay amount as stree dhan -
Earlier, respondent got maintenance order
- Appellant paid Rs. 6 lakhs and tendered
Rs. 1 lakh via demand draft - Impugned
judgment shows photocopies of jewellery
receipts as secondary evidence without
stating reasons for their admissibility -
Respondent alleged that appellant forcibly
snatched her jewellery, assaulted her, but
in FIR, allegation was of conspiracy
involving
seven
accused,
including
appellant
-
In
cross-examination,
respondent admitted appellant was not
present during incident, ignored by trial
court - Trial court concluded appellant did
not dispute receipts and admitted price of
jewellery
mentioned
in
receipts
-
However,
receipts
being
photocopies,
respondent claims receipts related to
jewellery gifted to her as stree dhan -
Appellant, having no knowledge of these
transactions, cannot deemed to have
admitted them - Document must be
proved by its maker or witness to its
making - Mere absence of objection does
not establish appellant's possession of
stree dhan jewellery - Proof of possession
needed to be established - Return of stree
dhan
determined
at
trial
within
proceedings under Act, not independently
through application under Section 27.
(Para 2, 6, 8)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Babita @ Gyatri Vs ModPrasad @ Pintu
reported in 2018 AIR Chh 40, Judgment dated
12th September, 2017, (Para 7)

2. Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam Vs Sangeeta
Balkrishna Kadam reported in AIR 1997 SC 3562
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arindam Sinha, J.)

1. Mr. Shalvin, learned advocate
appears on behalf of appellant and on 15th
May, 2025, with reference to earlier order
dated 16th April, 2025, had handed up
demand draft no.026265 dated 23rd April,
2025 issued by Central Bank of India in
favour of respondent, for Rs.1 lac. He
submitted, Rs. 6 lacs was earlier paid. That
he is ready to proceed with hearing of the
appeal. Mr. Diwakar Tiwari assisted by Mr.
Gyanendra
Singh,
learned
advocates
appearing on behalf of respondent, on
query had confirmed, Rs. 6 lacs was earlier
paid to his client by appellant.

2. The appeal stands preferred
against judgment dated 31st March, 2022
directing appellant to pay Rs.10,54,364/- in
lieu of returning 'stree dhan' articles. We
have ascertained, the marriage stood
1420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
subsequently dissolved on judgment dated
1st May, 2023 of the Family Court. Prior to
that respondent had filed application dated
13th May, 2015 and obtained order dated
11th August, 2017 directing payment of
maintenance under section 125 in Code of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973.
Appellant
earlier paid Rs. 6 lacs and had handed up
said demand draft for payment of another
Rs. 1 lac.

3.
Submission
on
behalf
of
appellant is, impugned judgment was made
invoking provision in section 27 of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. It allows for inclusion
of such provisions in the decree with
respect to joint property, presented at or
about the time of marriage. There cannot be
an independent order made under the
provision. The marriage stood dissolved on
judgment dated 1st May, 2023. There was
no direction for maintenance nor any
direction regarding 'stree dhan'. Such
direction could only be made in decree
passed in the proceeding for dissolution of
the marriage but not otherwise.

4. Mr. Shalvin relies on view taken
by a Division Bench in the High Court of
Chhattisgarh on judgment dated 12th
September, 2017 reported in 2018 AIR
Chh
40
(Babita
@
Gyatri
V/s
ModPrasad
@
Pintu),
paragraph
7
(Lawsuit
print).
Said
paragraph
is
reproduced below.

 "[7] The expression used in the
above quoted provision contained in
Section 27 of the Act, 1955 would explicit,
on a bare reading, that the Court may make
provisions in the decree as it deems just
and proper with respect to any property
presented, at or about the time of marriage,
which may belong jointly to both the
husband
and
the
wife.
When
any
matrimonial proceeding under the Act is
not decided between the parties, the
provision does not clothe the Court with
jurisdiction to entertain an independent
application under Section 27 of the Act
without
there
being
any
further
proceeding under the Act as contemplated
in Section 9 to 13 and 13-A and 13-B of
the Act, 1955. The provision has been
made with an intent to avoid multiplicity
of litigation and to entitle the wife to move
application for return of Streedhan
properties in the same proceedings, in
which a matrimonial dispute has been
brought to the Court for adjudication.
However, Section 27 itself has not been
considered
to
be
a
separate
and
independent matrimonial proceeding so as
to entitle the Court to entertain such
independent application under Section 27
of the Act, 1955."
 (emphasis supplied)

 Mr. Shalvin submits further, the
Family Court, in impugned judgment, had
recorded that the incident of respondent being
thrown out of the house happened on 24th
November, 2014, when allegedly his client
forcibly snatched jewellery, beat and tortured
and threw her out of the house. Respondent, in
her written statement, had attached photocopy
of FIR Crime no.886/ 2014 under sections
498A, 326B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in
which his client is named. However,
respondent clearly admitted in sixth line from
bottom of page one of her deposition in crossexamination that at the time of alleged
incident, his client was not present in Karwi
but was in Bombay, at his job. The application
for return of alleged 'stree dhan' was fictitious.
It ought to have been dismissed.

5. Mr. Diwakar Tiwari submits, his
client had duly proved the documents
5 All. Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. Priti Gupta
1421
disclosed, to show that she had 'stree dhan'
given to her at the time of marriage and
subsequently, she was turned out of the
marital home wearing only the clothes she
had on. With regard to record of appellant's
argument before the Family Court, of the
incident happened on 24th November,
2014, same was dealt with in last paragraph
of impugned judgment. On query he is
unable to point out, who was found by the
Family
Court
to
have
taken
away
respondent's jewellery and thrown her out
of the house on 24th November, 2014. He
submits further, appellant had filed for
review of impugned judgment but was
unsuccessful. Not having preferred appeal
from rejection of his review, he is estopped
from prosecuting the appeal. So much so,
his client initiated execution proceeding
and there was part recovery, also not
challenged by appellant.

6. It appears from impugned
judgment, jewellery receipts tendered by
respondent were photocopies. There is no
indication as to why they were accepted as
secondary
evidence.
Also,
impugned
judgment does say that in the application,
appellant had been accused that on 24th
November, 2014 he had forcibly snatched
jewellery, as mentioned, from respondent,
beat, tortured and threw her out of the house.
Here we note, in FIR dated 24th November,
2014 allegation was of conspiracy. Seven
persons including appellant were named as
accused. Respondent in her written statement
herself attached photocopy of FIR Crime
no.886 of 2014 under provisions in Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961, naming appellant. The learned
Judge went on to record appellant's argument
based on respondent's admission in crossexamination that, he was not present when
alleged incident of 24th November, 2014
took place. Yet, the learned Judge did not
deal with this aspect of appellant's argument,
in impugned judgment. The learned Judge
however said, appellant had not refuted the
receipts of the jewellery issued by Neelam
Jewellers and hence, it is justified to admit
the price of the jewellery mentioned in the
receipts. Here we must observe, as aforesaid,
the receipts were photocopies. Respondent's
case was, they were receipts for jewellery
purchased by her side and given to her as
'stree dhan'. Appellant, therefore, could have
had no knowledge of the transactions
reflected in the copy receipts, for him to be
saddled with admission, required as proof to
act upon the copy documents. A document
can only be proved by the maker of it. It may
also be proved by someone receiving an
original document, who testifies that he
witnessed the maker of it, making it and
handing it over to the witness. As aforesaid,
there is no indication why secondary
evidence was admitted. On tender of the
photocopies and omission to object, inference
of admission was drawn, to rely upon the
documents. That would only prove purchase.
Possession of the 'stree dhan' jewellery, still
was needed to be established.

7. The learned single Judge appears
to have accepted the allegations of
appellant
forcibly
taking
away
the
jewellery, beating up, torture and throwing
respondent out of the house because
complaint was lodged by her and criminal
case is pending before the Court at Banda.
It was an oblique way of not directly
dealing
appellant's
contention
that
respondent
had
admitted
in
crossexamination, of him not being present at
the time of incident.

8. Besides the factual matrix, there
is also the question of law that had been
raised before the Family Court. It was that
an independent proceeding under section
1422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
27 could not be initiated to result in a
decree. We respectfully agree with view
taken in Babita @ Gyatri (supra) that
section 27 has not been considered to be a
separate and independent matrimonial
proceeding so as to entitle the Court to
entertain such independent application. The
Division Bench went on to refer to a
judgment of the Supreme Court in
Balkrishna
Ramchandra
Kadam
vs.
Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam reported in AIR
1997 SC 3562 to say, the Apex Court had said,
section 27 provides alternative remedy to the
wife so that she can recover the property, which
is covered by the section. Accordingly we hold,
return of 'stree dhan' has to be an issue, to be
determined at trial in a proceeding under the Act
and not independently on application made
under section 27.

9. We would like to add, section 25
allows for a spouse to, subsequent to decree for
dissolution of marriage, apply for direction on
maintenance, either by monthly or gross sum.
Section 27 empowers the Court passing decree
to include provisions in it with respect to any
property presented, at or about the time of
marriage, which may belong jointly to the
parties. We see that there was no direction in
respect of property, joint or otherwise, made in
the judgment and decree dated 1st May, 2023
dissolving the marriage.

10. Impugned judgment is set aside in
appeal. On 15th May, 2025, the draft was
handed over to Mr. Singh on acknowledgement
made by him denoting receipt thereof. His client
may appropriate same in adjustment of her claim
for maintenance, emanating from aforesaid order
dated 11th August, 2017. She thus has received
aggregate Rs. 7 lacs. Her claim can only be till
on or before date of judgment dissolving the
marriage i.e. 1st May, 2023. Photocopies of the
instrument were signed by Mr. Singh. One was
kept in the record and the other handed over to
Mr. Shalvin, who had submitted, in addition to
aggregate Rs. 7 lacs, respondent recovered Rs.
2,10,000/- by part execution of impugned
judgment. Said sum be also adjusted against
respondent's claim pursuant to said maintenance
order dated 11th August, 2017 made under
section 125 in Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. We direct accordingly, in exercise of our
appellate power under rule 33 in order XLI,
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

11. Before parting with the case we are
required to deal with respondent's contention
that appellant was unsuccessful in seeking
review of impugned judgment as well as had not
preferred
appeal
against
the
execution
proceeding initiated by her. While grounds of
review stand provided in section 114 and the
procedure in order XLVII, appeal is statutory
right, conferred by section 96 and provided for in
order XLI. So far as the execution is concerned,
appellant having succeeded in the appeal, the
execution case must be dropped, as pursuant to
impugned order passed without jurisdiction,
being a nullity. The executing Court will act
accordingly on such question arisen on
adjudication of the appeal, to be determined by
the executing Court, under section 47.

12. The appeal is allowed and disposed of.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1422
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Special Appeal No. 161 of 2025

Rajvir Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P.Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
 ...Respondents