Stridhan of a lady seized from her ex-husband’s premises during search must be handed over to her

We further notice that the Family Court, Mumbai, has also passed an order on 22^nd February 2007 in which while granting decree of dissolution of marriage, it is provided that the petitioner would be entitled to all those ornaments lying with the Income Tax Authority, at Ahmedabad. The issue is, therefore, sufficiently clear. Gold ornaments seized by the income tax authorities from the respondent No.2 belonged to the petitioner and she is entitled to receive the same.

No proceedings are pending due to which, the income tax authorities can even otherwise withhold such ornaments. Ordinarily, it may have been necessary to insist that the respondent No.2 should file a formal application before the income tax authorities in this respect authorizing the Department to handover the ornaments to the wife. However, in the present case, relations between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 have soured and they have taken divorce. Legal proceedings have period of time. The respondent No.2 has also written independently to the Income Tax Department on 23^rd March, 2012 authorizing them to handover such ornaments to the wife (the petitioner herein).

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7537 of 2012

RENUKA R MODI
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & 2  

CORAM : HONORABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and

HONORABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI

Date : 26/09/2012

ORAL ORDER

(Per : HONORABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

1.   In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief :

“22(B) Your Lordship be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus or certiorari directing the respondent No.1 to hand over or release the Stridhan gold ornaments seized by the respondents from the custody of the petitioner, to the petitioner.”

2. The petitioner and respondent No.2 were earlier married. They have later on opted for divorce. The residential premise of the  respondent No.2, ex-husband of the petitioner, came to be searched by the Income Tax Department on or around 25.11.1988. In the above process, certain ornaments and valuables were seized. Such ornaments included gold jewellery and diamond jewellery. The case of the petitioner is that the gold jewellery belongs to her and not her husband. It is her Stridhan. Even before the assessing authority, the respondent No. 2, ex-husband of the petitioner also took similar stand. Such stand was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). Such order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has become final. The petitioner, therefore, claims return of such ornaments.