2026:JHHC:25806-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

First Appeal No.95 of 2025

-----

Anil Kumar Singh aged about 44 years, Son of Gorakh Nath Singh,

resident of Plot No.B/63, Adarsh Co-operative, PO&PS-Sector 12,

District: Bokaro .......… Appellant

Versus

1. Priya Raj, Wife of Anil Kumar Singh, Daughter of Alakh Deo Singh,

resident of Lane No.04, Azad Path, Near the house of Mahesh Pandey,

Chandmari Road, PO and PS Kankarbagh, district Patna, Bihar

2. The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, B.S. City Branch, Plot

No.B-17, City Center, Sector-4, P.O. and P.S. Sector-4, District

Bokaro.

… … Respondents

-------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

-------

For the Appellant : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate

Ms. Priyanka, Advocate

Mrs. Rajika Mahali, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Umesh Kumar Choubey, Advocate

------

C.A.V on 27.07.2026 Pronounced on 27/08/2026

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer

The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, is

directed against the judgment dated 07.12.2024 and decree dated

18.12.2024 passed in Original Suit No.72 of 2022 by the learned Principal

Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed

under the provisions of Specific Relief Act read with Section 7 of the

Family Courts Act by the plaintiff-respondent herein has been allowed.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the plaint having been recorded

by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred as under:

(i) It is the case of the plaintiff-wife (respondent no.1 herein)

that she and the Defendant No.1 (appellant herein) are

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

2

legally married wife and husband. Their marriage was

solemnized on 20.04.2014 as per Hindu rites and custom.

After marriage, they lived together as husband and wife.

During marriage, she had received gold and silver jewellery,

worth Rs.25,00,000/-by way of gift from her father's side as

well from the side of Defendant No.1 which is her absolute

property. During living together, she had entrusted the same

for keeping in a locker and it was kept with the Defendant

No.2, i.e. Union Bank of India, B.S. City Branch, vide

Locker No. GB-69 attached to S.B. A/c No.

452402010750832. Mode of operation of the Locker was

either by her or by the Defendant No.1. Owing to subjecting

her with cruelty and torture for demand of dowry, she could

not continue her conjugal life and shifted to her parents’

home, leaving her Stridhan in custody of the Defendant Nos.

1 & 2. She requested the Defendant No.1 to hand over her

Stridhan on various occasions but he paid no heed rather

threatened to forget her Stridhan. On 05.05.2017 she also

sent an application to the Defendant No.2 requesting him not

to allow the operation of the Locker but the Defendant No.2

had not stated or informed anything. She is apprehensive of

safe custody of her Stridhan. She got legal notice served

upon the Defendant No.2 on 13.01.2022 but the Defendant

No.2 in spite of service of legal notice did not bother to reply

nor any tangible step had been taken. Her said Stridhan is

not being allowed to be availed by her. She is apprehensive

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

3

of its misuse at the hands of the Defendant No.1 in

connivance with the Defendant No.2, hence, the suit has

been filed.

(ii) Out of two defendants the Defendant No.1 appeared and

contested the suit by filing written-statement on 12.08.2022

but the Defendant No.2 did not appear in spite of processes

against him and vide order dated 25/05.11.2022 the suit has

been heard ex-parte against him.

(iii) The Defendant No.1 (appellant herein) has pleaded in his

written statement that the instant suit of the Petitioner is not

at all maintainable either in law or in facts. The Plaintiff has

filed the suit on the basis of false and frivolous grounds and

she has suppressed many material facts. The suit lacks

territorial jurisdiction. Before lodging dowry case at Patna,

she has already taken her all the Stridhan and the same is

still in her possession, so there is no occasion to file the

present suit. She has lodged an FIR against him and others

at Patna only to harass them. In the said Locker the

Petitioner has got no stridhan and the ornaments in the

locker belong to his mother and father and to operate the

locker one key has been provided by the bank which is in

his possession and the pass book is in possession of the

Petitioner.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties following

issues were framed for adjudication of this suit;

(i) Is this suit maintainable in its present form?

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

4

(ii) Whether the Petitioner has valid cause of action

for the suit?

(iii) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to get decree for

declaration and injunction under the provision of Specific

Relief Act read along with section 7 of Family Courts

Act?

(iv) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to get the relief

as prayed for?

3. Learned Family Judge, after institution of the said case, taking

into consideration of the pleadings as also the issues, has decided the lis

allowing to grant relief in favour of the plaintiff-respondent herein.

4. The aforesaid judgment by which the relief granted to the

plaintiff-respondent herein, is under challenge by filing the instant appeal.

Submission on behalf of the appellant-husband:

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband has

taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned judgment:

(i) There is an error in the impugned judgment, since, each and

every aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration

based upon the documentary evidences as well as ocular

evidences.

(ii) It has been contended that after marriage the petitioner-

respondent herein started living with the appellant-husband and

his parents but she was misbehaving with parents of the appellant

and thereafter, both started living in separate house but there also

she used to quarrel with the appellant-husband.

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

5

(iii) It has also been contended that her father in his evidence has

stated that he gave ornament worth Rs.8,00,000/- while the

petitioner is claiming stridhan worth Rs.25,00,000/- which shows

that the suit has been filed with ulterior motive.

(iv) He has further submitted that the petitioner-respondent herein

was claiming stridhan in a case filed at Patna under Domestic

Violence Act.

(v) He has also submitted that she filed several cases against the

appellant and his family members at Patna and making a false

ground has filed the suit only to harass the appellant-husband.

(vi) It has been contended that the learned Family Court has

wrongly decided the suit as there is specific evidence on record

that the appellant has been able to establish that the jewelleries in

the locker are not of the plaintiff and she has taken her entire

stridhan along with her.

(vii) It has been contended that the plaintiff-respondent has not

given her stridhan and handed over to the appellant rather she took

her entire stridhan along with her with a false assurance that she

was taking those jewelleries for marriage in her family.

(viii) It has been contended that if at all the appellant has any

intention to misuse the stridhan he was having sufficient time to

take out the stridhan and used the same.

6. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that

the impugned judgment is perverse and therefore, needs interference.

Submission on behalf of the respondent-wife:

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

6

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife has taken the

following grounds in defending the impugned judgment:

(i) There is no error in the impugned judgement. The learned

Family Judge has considered the entire issue and on the

basis of evidence as led by the parties has passed the order

impugned as such same may not be interfered with.

(ii) It has been contended that after marriage, they lived

together as husband and wife and during marriage, she had

received gold and silver jewellery worth Rs.25,00,000/- by

way of gift from her father’s side as well as from the side

of defendant no.1-appellant herein. During that time, she

had entrusted the same for keeping in a locker and it was

kept with the defendant no.2-respondent no.2 herein vide

locker no.GB-69 attached to Saving account. The mode of

operation of locker was either by her or by her husband.

(iii) It has been submitted that subjecting her with cruelty and

torture for demand of dowry, she was not able to lead her

conjugal life and shifted to her parent’s home, leaving her

stridhan in custody of appellant.

(iv) It has also been submitted that she requested the appellant

to hand over her stridhan on various occasions but he paid

no heed rather threatened to forget her stridhan. She was

apprehensive of safe custody of her stridhan. She was also

apprehensive of its misuse at the hand of the appellant in

connivance with the respondent no.2.

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

7

(v) It has also been submitted that the learned Family Court

after taking into consideration the material available on

record has found that the conduct of the appellant-husband

has never been towards salvaging the institution of

marriage, therefore, on the pretext of the aforesaid

categorical finding of the Family Court, the impugned

order requires no interference.

8. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that

the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from an error.

Analysis:

9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone

through the impugned judgment, as also, the material available on record.

10. The learned Family Judge has formulated altogether four issues, for

ready reference, the same are being quoted hereinbelow:

(i) Is this suit maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether the Petitioner has valid cause of action for the

suit?

(iii) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to get decree for

declaration and injunction under the provision of Specific

Relief Act read along with section 7 of Family Courts Act?

(iv) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to get the relief as

prayed for?

11. The main issue, i.e., Whether the petitioner is entitled to get decree for

declaration and injunction under the provision of Specific Relief Act read

along with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act.

12. The learned Family Judge has taken into consideration the issue nos.(iii)

& (iv), i.e., whether the Petitioner is entitled to get decree for declaration

and injunction under the provision of Specific Relief Act read along with

section 7 of Family Courts Act and whether the Petitioner is entitled to get

the relief as prayed for?

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

8

13. The learned Family Judge has considered the evidence adduced on behalf

of the parties for deciding the issues involved in the Suit.

14. This Court, in order to appreciate the aforesaid rival submission before

entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment, needs

to discuss herein the relevant part of the evidences adduced on behalf of

the parties which has been mentioned in the impugned order.

15. In support of her case, the plaintiff/wife has examined two witnesses, i.e.,

P.W.-1, Priya Raj (plaintiff herself) and P.W.-2, Alakh Deo Singh (father

of the plaintiff).

16. On the other hand, the respondent-husband (appellant herein), has

examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2, Gorakh Nath Singh (father

of appellant) and D.W.3, Shanti Devi (mother of appellant).

17. For ready reference the testimony of witnesses as has been examined

during trial is being referred herein.

18. P.W.-1 is the Plaintiff herself (respondent herein). P.W.1, namely, Priya

Raj in her examination-in-chief has stated about getting gold and silver

ornaments in her marriage from parental side as well as husband side

approximately worth Rs. 25,00,000/-. After marriage she started residing

with her husband at Adarsh Colony, Chas and thereafter to the Quarters

allotted by Bokaro Steel Plant. During her stay at Chas, she handed over

ornaments to the Defendant No.1 for keeping in branch of bank of

Defendant No.2 in the allotted locker no.69 for safety purpose. The mode

of the locker was either to be operated by her or the Defendant

No.1(appellant herein). The key of the locker was kept lying with the

Defendant No.1.

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

9

19. She has further stated that she has filed this suit to get her stridhan kept in

locker no.69 connected account no. with saving bank 452402010750832.

In para-19 of the cross-examination she has corroborated her evidence and

said that the locker in Union bank of India, as said by her, is joint locker.

In para-20 she has said that the passbook of the said locker is with her. In

para-21 she has expressed her ignorance as to whether any one of her in-

laws have got any locker in that bank or not. In para-22 she has said that

she cannot say as to whether the details of ornaments have been given in

the plaint or not. In para-33 she has denied suggestion of the Defendant

No.1 that she has got her no stridhan in the locker in Union Bank of India.

In para-35 she has denied suggestion of the Defendant No.1 that in the said

locker ornaments of her mother-in-law, gotani (wife of brother of her

husband) and nanad (sister of her husband) are lying which is being

claimed by her as her stridhan and further said that the said locker is in

joint in her and her husband’s name.

20. P.W.-2 Alakh Deo Singh, who is father of the Plaintiff, has supported the

evidence of the Plaintiff (PW1) and stated in has examination-in-chief that

in the marriage the Plaintiff got gold and silver ornament from him, other

relatives and friends and from her in-laws side worth Rs.25,00,000/-. He

has further stated that after marriage his daughter started residing with her

husband at Adarsh Colony, Chas and thereafter to the Quarters allotted by

Bokaro Steel Plant and during her stay at Chas for safety purpose she

handed over her ornaments to the Defendant No.1 for keeping in branch

of bank of Defendant No.2 (respondent no.2 herein) in the allotted locker

no.69. The mode of the locker was either to be operated by wife or

husband. He has further stated that she requested the Defendant No.1 to

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

10

give her stridhan but he continuously kept deaf ears. He has further stated

that the case has been filed to get her stridhan kept in locker no.69

connected with saving bank account no. 452402010750832.

21. In para-17 of the cross-examination, he has deposed that whatsoever has

been written in his affidavit has been heard by him from his daughter. In

para-19 he has said that he gave ornaments worth rupees eight lakhs to his

daughter (Petitioner) and other articles. In para-32 he has denied

suggestion of the Defendant No.1 that in the said locker ornaments of

mother, sister and bhabhi (sister-in-law) of the Defendant No.1 are lying

and voluntarily said that the said locker and account were opened after the

marriage.

22. D.W.1, namely, Anil Kumar Singh, who is the Defendant No.1 (appellant

herein), has stated in his examination-in-chief on affidavit that on

11.11.2017 maternal uncle and father of the Plaintiff came to his house

and in the name of marriage of cousin of the Plaintiff took her away with

them on 12.11.2017 without his knowledge and the Plaintiff in the name

of attending marriage took away all her gold and silver ornaments and she

never returned to her matrimonial house thereafter.

23. He has further deposed that the plaintiff wants to grab all ornaments of his

sister, mother and sister-in-law kept in the locker of Defendant No.2. He

has further testified that no stridhan of the Plaintiff is lying in the locker

of Defendant No.2 rather it belongs to his mother, sister and sister-in-law.

In his cross-examination in para-31 he has admitted that after the marriage

for locker an account was opened in Union Bank of India and passbook,

cheque-book and key of locker were issued by the bank. He is not

remembering as to how many times the locker was opened but it was

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

11

opened by him only. He has denied that ornaments of the Plaintiff only

were lying in that locker and said that ornaments of his mother, father,

bhabhi and sister was lying in the locker of bank.

24. In para-16 of the written-statement the Defendant No.1 has pleaded that

ornaments kept in the locker belong to his mother and father.

25. D.W.2, Gorakhnath Singh, who is father of the Defendant No.1, has filed

his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that the Plaintiff has got her

no stridhan in the locker of Union Bank of India, City Center Branch, B.S.

City rather ornaments of his wife, elder daughter-in-law and daughter have

been kept and those are- 1 mangaltikka, 1 set (necklace and earring), 2

nathiya, 2 payal, 1 bangle set, 1 ring, 6 ear rings, 10 gold rings, 1 gold

chain locket and dholna, 1 pola bangle, one diamond earring, 1 mangal

sutra, 1 gold chain. These are gold ornaments. He has also given details of

silver ornaments which are- 2 bowls, 1 spoon, 1 glass, 5 silver coin and 1

fish (Pan, Kasaili (5 each). In para-26 of his cross-examination he has

admitted that bank locker has been opened in United Commercial Bank,

City Center, Sector-4 in which what ornaments have been kept is not

known to him but in that locker ornaments of his son and daughter-in-law

have been kept.

26. Examination-in-chief of the DW3 Shanti Devi, who is mother of the

DW.1, has deposed in para-15 that the Plaintiff has got her no stridhan in

the locker of Union Bank of India, City Center Branch, B.S. City rather

her ornaments and ornaments of her elder daughter-in-law and daughter

have been kept and she has also given detail of those ornaments like the

DW2 and further stated that the Plaintiff has filed the suit to grab their

jewellery.

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

12

27. The learned Family Court, in the light of the pleadings of the parties and

evidence adduced had formulated the issue and has allowed the petition

filed under the provisions of Specific Relief Act read with Section 7 of the

Family Courts Act in favour of plaintiff-respondent and has observed that

the Stridhan of the plaintiff/petitioner (respondent no.1 herein) lying in

the locker no.GB69 connected with SB Account No.452402010750832 in

Union Bank of India, Bokaro Steel City, Branch is absolute property of the

plaintiff/petitioner (respondent no.1 herein) and she is entitled to get it.

The defendants (appellant herein) are hereby restrained to operate the said

locker or allowed it to be operated behind the back of the plaintiff. The

aforesaid order has been challenged herein in the instant appeal.

28. In essence, the defendant no.1/appellant has argued that the Family Court

erred in its decision, as the evidence clearly establishes that the jewelleries

kept in the locker did not belong to the plaintiff-respondent no.1, who had

already taken her entire stridhan with her. It is further contended that the

plaintiff-respondent did not hand over her stridhan to the appellant but

instead removed it herself under the false pretext of using the jewelleries

for a marriage in her family.

29. Lastly, it is urged that if the appellant had any intention to misuse the

stridhan, he had ample opportunity to do so earlier, which demonstrates

that no such misuse was ever contemplated. The learned counsel, based

upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned judgment is

perverse and therefore, needs interference.

30. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein that the interpretation of

the word “perverse” as has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court

which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

13

evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State

[Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206

while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt,

true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant

material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding

so outrageously defies logic as so to suffer from the vice of irrationality

incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm

in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said

judgment reads as under:

“24. The expression “perverse” has been dealt with in a number of

cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [(2001) 1 SCC 501] this Court

observed that the expression “perverse” means that the findings of the

subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on

record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of

procedural irregularity.

25. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd.

[AIR 1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that “perverse finding” means

a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is

altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber & Plastics

v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341] the Court

observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the findings of

the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse

that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings.

26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58] the

Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of

pleading and law is a perverse order. In Moffett

v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the Court observed that a “perverse

verdict” may probably be defined as one that is not only against the

weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. In Godfrey v.

Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court defined “perverse” as turned the

wrong way, not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating

from what is right, proper, correct, etc.

27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by various

dictionaries in the following manner:

1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 6th Edn.

“Perverse.—Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that

most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable.”

2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, International

Edn.

Perverse.—Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable.

3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn.

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

14

Perverse.—Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the

direction of the judge on a point of law.

4. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language

(Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.)

Perverse.—Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or

opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant.

5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Edn.

“Perverse. —A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that

is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the

evidence.”

31. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that if any order made in conscious

violation of pleading and law then it will come under the purview of

perverse order. Further “perverse verdict" may probably be defined as one

that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the

evidence.

32. Thus, “perversity” refers to a finding or decision so unreasonable or

irrational that no reasonable person acting judicially could have reached it.

It signifies a gross and unreasonable assessment of evidence or law by a

court.

33. Further Perversity is a high threshold for intervention, distinguishing it

from a mere error of fact or law. The "safest approach on perversity is the

classic approach on the reasonable man's inference on the facts but

inadequacy of evidence or a different reading of evidence is not perversity,

reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi, (2016) 14 SCC

197.

34. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court is now

re-adverting of the factual aspect of the case.

35. It is evident that the plaintiff-wife (respondent no.1) asserts that her

marriage with the appellant was solemnized on 20.04.2014 under Hindu

rites, and during the marriage she received gold and silver jewellery worth

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

15

₹25,00,000 as gifts from both sides, which constituted her stridhan. It has

further been stated that she entrusted these ornaments to a locker jointly

operated by herself and the appellant at Union Bank of India, B.S. City

Branch. Alleging cruelty and dowry demands, she left her matrimonial

home but her stridhan remained in the custody of the defendants. Despite

repeated requests, the defendant no.1/husband (appellant herein) refused

to return the stridhan and threatened her, while the bank failed to respond,

leading her to apprehend misuse of her property and filed the suit before

the learned Family Court.

36. The appellant (defendant no.1), however, contested the suit by filing a

written statement on 12.08.2022, claiming that the suit was not

maintainable either in law or on facts, and that the plaintiff had suppressed

material facts. He contended that she had already taken her stridhan before

lodging a dowry case at Patna, and therefore had no cause of action. He

further alleged that the ornaments in the locker belonged to his parents, not

the plaintiff, and that she filed the case only to harass him through false

allegations and FIRs. After considering the pleadings and issues, the

learned Family Judge ultimately decided the matter in favour of the

plaintiff-respondent, granting her relief.

37. It is evident from testimony of the P.W.1 (Plaintiff/Respondent No.1) that

she has unequivocally deposed that subsequent to her marriage she

commenced cohabitation with her husband at Adarsh Colony, Chas, and

thereafter in the quarters allotted by Bokaro Steel Plant. During her

residence at Chas, she entrusted her ornaments to Defendant No.1 for safe

custody in Locker No. GB-69 of Defendant No.2’s bank branch. The said

locker was jointly operable either by herself or Defendant No.1 (the

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

16

appellant herein), and the key thereof remained in possession of Defendant

No.1.

38. In para-19 of her cross-examination, she reaffirmed her testimony, stating

that the locker in Union Bank of India was indeed a joint locker. In para-

20, she asserted that the passbook of the said locker is in her possession.

In para-33, she categorically denied the suggestion of Defendant No.1 that

no stridhan was deposited in the locker. In para-35, she further denied the

suggestion that the ornaments of her mother-in-law, her husband’s

brother’s wife (gotani), and her husband’s sister (nanad) were kept therein,

reiterating that the locker stood jointly in her and her husband’s names.

39. P.W.2 Alakh Deo Singh, father of the Plaintiff, corroborated her evidence

in his examination-in-chief, affirming that at the time of marriage the

Plaintiff received gold and silver ornaments worth approximately

₹25,00,000/- from him, relatives, friends, and also from her in-laws.

40. In para-32, he denied the suggestion of Defendant No.1 that ornaments

belonging to the Defendant’s mother, sister, and sister-in-law were stored

in the locker, and volunteered that the said locker and account were opened

only after the marriage.

41. D.W.1 Anil Kumar Singh (Defendant No.1/Appellant herein), in his

examination-in-chief on affidavit, stated that on 11.11.2017, the Plaintiff’s

maternal uncle and father visited his residence and, under the pretext of

attending the marriage of the Plaintiff’s cousin, took her away on

12.11.2017 without his knowledge. He alleged that the Plaintiff, under the

guise of attending the marriage, carried away all her gold and silver

ornaments and never returned to her matrimonial home thereafter. He

further asserted that no stridhan of the Plaintiff is lying in the locker of

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

17

Defendant No.2, which instead contains ornaments belonging to his

mother, sister, and sister-in-law.

42. In para-31 of his cross-examination, D.W.1 admitted that subsequent to

marriage, an account was opened in Union Bank of India for the locker,

and that the passbook, cheque-book, and locker key were issued by the

bank. He professed inability to recall the number of times the locker was

operated, but conceded that it was operated solely by him.

43. D.W.2 Gorakhnath Singh, father of Defendant No.1, in his examination-

in-chief on affidavit, deposed that the Plaintiff has no stridhan in the locker

of Union Bank of India, City Center Branch, B.S. City, and that the

ornaments therein belong to his wife, elder daughter-in-law, and daughter.

44. D.W.3 Shanti Devi, mother of Defendant No.1, in her examination-in-

chief, specifically in para-15, deposed that the Plaintiff has no stridhan in

the said locker, which instead contains her own ornaments and those of her

elder daughter-in-law and daughter.

45. Thus, in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court has carefully examined the

testimonies of the witnesses adduced on behalf of the plaintiff-wife

(respondent no.1 herein) as well as the defendant no.1 (appellant herein),

from which, the following facts have emerged:

(i) The plaintiff (respondent no.1 herein) and the defendant

no.1 (appellant herein) are legally wedded spouses, their

marriage having been solemnized on 20.04.2014.

(ii) Subsequent to the marriage, Locker No. GB-69 was opened

and made operational at the Union Bank of India, B.S. City

Branch (defendant no.2/respondent no.2 herein), linked with

S.B. Account No. 452402010750832, with the mode of

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

18

operation vested jointly in either the plaintiff or the defendant

no.1.

(iii) It is apparent that the said locker, however, has at all times

been operated exclusively by the defendant no.1.

(iv) Further, the key of the locker remains in the custody of the

defendant no.1, whereas the passbook of the connected account

is in possession of the plaintiff.

46. It is evident that the Defendant No.1(appellant herein) has not specifically

disputed the existence of Locker No. GB -69, S.B. A/C

No.452402010750832 at the Union Bank of India, B.S. City Branch,

which is operable either by himself or by his wife, the Plaintiff (respondent

no.1 herein). His plea is confined to asserting that the said locker contains

no stridhan of the Plaintiff, but rather ornaments belonging to his parents.

He has further admitted that the locker is operated with a single key issued

by the bank, which remains in his possession, while the passbook

pertaining thereto is in the custody of the Petitioner. Accordingly,

Defendant No.1 has acknowledged that the passbook relating to the said

locker is held by the Petitioner.

47. In para-33, plaintiff/petitioner (respondent no.1) categorically denied the

suggestion of Defendant No.1(appellant herein) that no stridhan was

deposited in the locker in Union Bank of India. By such suggestion the

Defendant No.1 is not denying that she has got locker in the said bank.

Further in paragraph 35 plaintiff/petitioner (respondent no.1) denied the

suggestion that the ornaments of her mother-in-law, her husband’s

brother’s wife (gotani), and her husband’s sister (nanad) were kept therein,

reiterating that the locker stood jointly in her and her husband’s names. By

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

19

such suggestion the Defendant is not denying that in the said locker

ornaments are lying.

48. Thus, P.W.1 has withstood the rigours of cross-examination, and her

testimony is found to be wholly credible and reliable.

49. Further it is evident from evidence of PW.2 that he has fully substantiated

the evidence of P.W.1 by categorically stated that at the time of marriage

the Plaintiff received gold and silver ornaments worth approximately

₹25,00,000/- from him, relatives, friends, and also from her in-laws.

50. Further DW.1(appellant herein) has stated that he is not remembering as

to how many times the locker was opened but it was opened by him only.

Thus, such evidence supports the case of the Plaintiff/wife and evidence

of the Plaintiff/wife also gets corroboration from such evidence.

51. It is further evident from the record that D.W.1 (the appellant herein) has

not examined his brother, sister, and sister-in-law to substantiate the claim

that their ornaments were deposited in the said locker.

52. It is further pertinent to note that the mother of D.W.1, examined as D.W.3,

has categorically admitted in para-23 and para-25 of her cross-examination

that all her daughters were married prior to the marriage of Defendant

No.1, and that the locker in question was opened only after the marriage

of Defendant No.1 with the Plaintiff. This naturally raises the question: if

the daughters and elder son of D.W.3 were already married before the

marriage of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 (appellant herein), what

prevented them from opening an account and operating a locker earlier?

53. This question remains unanswered by Defendant No.1. Consequently, the

assertion made by the defence witnesses in their examination-in-chief that

the ornaments lying in the said locker belong exclusively to the mother,

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

20

sister, and sister-in-law of Defendant No.1 cannot be accepted as credible

or reliable.

54. Thus, upon consideration of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

considered view that D.W.1, the husband (appellant herein), has failed to

adduce any cogent evidence in support of his claim. Furthermore, as

observed in the preceding paragraphs, the assertion made by the defence

witnesses in their examination-in-chief that the ornaments lying in the said

locker belong exclusively to the mother, sister, and sister-in-law of

Defendant No.1 does not inspire confidence and cannot be accepted as

credible or reliable. Accordingly, the instant appeal is devoid of merit and

is not fit to be allowed.

55. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussions, this Court now proceeds to

re-advert to the impugned judgment for the limited purpose of examining

whether the same suffers from the vice of perversity.

56. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it is manifest that the learned

Family Court has elaborately dealt with every facet of the case. The Court

has meticulously appreciated both the oral and documentary evidence and,

upon such appreciation, has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the

Plaintiff-wife (Respondent No.1 herein). The Family Court has further

correctly held that the stridhan of the Plaintiff, lying in Locker No. GB-69

connected with S.B. Account No.452402010750832 in Union Bank of

India, Bokaro Steel City Branch, constitutes her absolute property, to

which she is lawfully entitled. The Defendants (appellants herein) are

accordingly restrained from operating the said locker or permitting its

operation behind the back of the Plaintiff. For ready reference the relevant

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

21

paragraphs of the impugned judgment are being quoted herein which reads

as under:

11. Issue No. (i) and (ii):-

The Plaintiff has been able to make out a case and successful

in proving the same that after her marriage with the Defendant

No.1 a locker no. GB-69 connected with S.B. A/C

No.452402010750832 was made operational in the bank

branch of Defendent No.2 namely Union Bank of India, B.S.

City branch at Bokaro and it was to be operated either by the

Plaintiff or the Defendant No.1. In that locker ornaments of

the Plaintiff are kept. As per her pleading her stridhan was

entrusted to the Defendant No.2 through the Defendant No.1.

So, as the entrustment is still there with the Defendant No.2,

therefore, the cause of action is still continuing. I find that the

Petitioner has valid cause of action for the present suit and it

is well maintainable. The contention of the learned counsel for

the Defendant No.1 that as the case filed by the Plaintiff at

Patna under the provision of the DV Act claiming her stridhan

is pending and as such this suit should be stayed is not tenable

and as such it is rejected.

Both these issues are thus answered.

12.In the light of above discussions, order is passed that-

ORDER

The present suit of the Plaintiff is decreed with contest against

the Defendant No.1 and ex-parte against the Defendant No.2

but without cost. It is hereby declared that the stridhan of the

Plaintiff lying in locker GB-69 connected with S.B.

No.452402010750832 in Union Bank of India, B.S. City

branch is absolute property of the Plaintiff and she is entitled

to get it. The Defendants are hereby restrained to operate the

said locker or allow it to be operated behind the back of the

Plaintiff. Parties shall bear their own cost of litigation.

Let a decree be prepared accordingly.

57. This Court, on consideration of the finding arrived at by the learned

Family Judge and based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that

the judgment passed by the learned Family Judge is not coming under the

fold of the perversity, since, the conscious consideration has been made of

2026:JHHC:25806-DB

22

the evidences, both ocular and documentary, as would be evident from the

impugned judgment.

58. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the judgment dated 07.12.2024

and decree dated 18.12.2024 passed in Original Suit No.72 of 2022 by the

learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro needs no interference.

59. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.

60. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

I Agree.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Dated:27/08/2026

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi

Rohit-A.F.R.

Uploaded on 27.08.2026