Wife Drags Ex-Husband Into 406 IPC Case 5 Years After Divorce? HP High Court Quashes Proceedings, Says Stridhan Retention Not A Continuing Offence

HIMACHAL PRADESH: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed a criminal breach of trust and intimidation case against a husband over the alleged non-return of his former wife's Istridhan, holding that the complaint filed nearly five years after their divorce was barred by limitation.

In a judgment dated 14 October 2026, Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh held that the alleged retention of Stridhan may not remain a continuing offence after the marriage has been legally dissolved.

The couple married on 7 February 2007 under Hindu customs. They started living separately around 2008 following matrimonial disputes.

Read Also:- Divorce Decree Cannot Be Granted Merely Relying On WhatsApp Chat & SMS Messages: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Family Court Order

The wife alleged that her husband demanded additional dowry, failed to provide maintenance and retained her jewellery and other belongings. She claimed that despite repeated requests since 2011 and a legal notice, her Stridhan was not returned.

Meanwhile, the husband obtained an ex-parte divorce decree on 9 October 2012 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. He subsequently remarried.

The wife had also pursued several maintenance proceedings. The High Court noted that her claim under Section 125 CrPC was disposed of on 21 September 2016, while her separate civil maintenance suit was dismissed by the Family Court on 13 May 2022.

The Court observed that the wife had not claimed the return of her Stridhan in those earlier matrimonial and maintenance proceedings.

On 19 July 2017, the wife filed a criminal complaint under Sections 406 and 506 IPC, alleging criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shimla, summoned the husband on 1 June 2018 and issued a notice of accusation on 3 September 2022.

The husband challenged these proceedings before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash the complaint and the orders passed against him.

His counsel argued that the allegations were frivolous and that the wife had concealed the earlier divorce decree. He also submitted that she had taken her belongings from the matrimonial home shortly after marriage.

Read Also:- Husband Detained Through 23 Orders Over Maintenance Default: Jharkhand High Court Calls It Illegal Under Section 125(3) CrPC, Orders Immediate Release

The husband further argued that the wife had been demanding her Stridhan since 2011 but approached the criminal court only in 2017. Therefore, the complaint was beyond the three-year limitation period under Section 468 CrPC.

The wife's counsel opposed the petition, arguing that retaining "Istridhan" constituted a "continuing offence" as long as the property remained with the husband.

The High Court examined the difference between divorce and judicial separation. It observed that judicial separation does not end the legal relationship between husband and wife, whereas a divorce decree legally dissolves the marriage.

The Court considered the Supreme Court's ruling in Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury, which recognised that retaining Stridhan can constitute a continuing offence while the marital relationship legally continues.

However, the High Court distinguished the present case because the marriage had already ended through a divorce decree.

Explaining the legal position, the Court observed:

"There can be no dispute that a wife cannot only file a suit for recovery of the "Istridhan", but she may also not be barred from lodging a criminal complaint for criminal breach of trust."

It further stated:

"It would also be a "continuing offence", as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment."

The Court then explained the distinction:

"But a clear distinction has been carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself, holding that in case the status of the parties is not severed because of a decree of dissolution of marriage, the offence may be a "continuing offence", but if the status between the parties has been severed, it may not be a "continuing offence"."

On the effect of divorce, the Court observed:

"After the dissolution of marriage, it may not remain the same."

The High Court found that the marriage had ended on 9 October 2012, whereas the wife filed her criminal complaint only on 19 July 2017.

It held that the complaint was filed beyond the applicable limitation period and that, in these circumstances, the alleged offence could not be treated as continuing.

The Court concluded that the wife could have claimed her Stridhan within three years of the divorce decree.

Accordingly, the Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed the husband's petition and quashed the criminal proceedings, including the summoning order dated 1 June 2018, the notice of accusation dated 3 September 2022, and all subsequent proceedings.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Husband Dragged Into Years Of Criminal Litigation: Himachal Pradesh High Court finally quashed the wife's time-barred Stridhan case.
• Divorce Cannot Keep Criminal Allegations Alive Forever: Court held that Stridhan retention may cease to be a continuing offence after divorce.
• Wife Waited Nearly 5 Years After Divorce: The court rejected the delayed criminal complaint under the three-year limitation rule.
• Multiple Maintenance Cases, But No Stridhan Claim: The Court noted that the wife had pursued earlier matrimonial proceedings without claiming her Stridhan.
• Men's Legal Rights Cannot Be Ignored: A divorced husband cannot be subjected to time-barred criminal proceedings merely because allegations are raised years later.