Thane Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To 3 In Matrimonial Dispute, Notes Stridhan Claims Cannot Override Bail Relief

Thane: Observing that “the complainant is having more concern with money and her stridhan property” and that these issues “cannot be a ground to deny anticipatory bail,” a Thane Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail to three members of a family accused in a matrimonial dispute.

Additional Sessions Judge B.D. Shelke granted the anticipatory bail to the woman’s husband, father and brother against whom an FIR was filed under the alleged charges of cruelty, outraging modesty and criminal intimidation.

The court noted that the documents placed on record primarily reflected monetary transactions between the complainant and the accused. It observed that disputes relating to the complainant’s money and stridhan could not, by themselves, justify rejection of anticipatory bail, particularly when higher courts have held that non-recovery of dowry articles or stridhan is not a valid ground to deny such relief.

According to the prosecution, the complainant married the accused on May 13, 2025, and alleged that her family had spent around Rs 37 lakh on the wedding. She accused her in-laws of allegedly making unlawful monetary demands, forcibly taking money from her, threatening her, and retaining her stridhan. She also alleged that her father-in-law made inappropriate remarks and outraged her modesty. The prosecution and the complainant opposed the bail plea, arguing that the accused could threaten witnesses and tamper with evidence if granted protection from arrest.

The defence argued that the FIR was lodged more than six months after the complainant left the matrimonial home and only after settlement talks for a mutual divorce failed. It submitted that the complainant, a Chartered Accountant, had made substantial monetary demands during negotiations and that the allegations did not require custodial interrogation. The defence also highlighted the advanced age and medical condition of the father-in-law.

After examining the FIR and documents, the court found that the allegations against the husband were largely confined to not supporting the complainant and siding with his family. It further observed that whether the allegations against the father-in-law regarding outraging modesty and the nature of the financial transactions could only be determined after evidence is led during trial. At the present stage, the court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and there was no likelihood of the accused absconding.

Relying on judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Bombay High Court, the Sessions Court reiterated that criminal proceedings are not meant to recover stridhan or money and that such considerations cannot be used to refuse anticipatory bail.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/