Istridhan Case: HC applies three-year limitation after divorce

Shimla, Oct 27,

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the retention of a woman’s istridhan cannot automatically be treated as a continuing offence after the dissolution of marriage, ruling that a criminal complaint filed beyond the prescribed limitation period was barred by law.

Allowing a petition, Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh quashed criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. VII, Shimla, including the summoning order dated June 1, 2018, and the notice of accusation issued on September 3, 2022, in a case involving allegations of criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation under Sections 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The order, dated October 14, 2026, clarifies the distinction between judicial separation and divorce while determining whether the alleged retention of istridhan constitutes a continuing offence for the purpose of criminal limitation.

Divorce severs marital status: Court

The complainant, Kanchan Lata, had alleged that her former husband retained her istridhan despite repeated requests for its return since 2011. The couple had married in February 2007 and, according to the complaint, had been living separately for several years. The criminal complaint was filed on July 19, 2017.

The court noted that the marriage had already been dissolved by a decree dated October 9, 2012, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

Explaining the legal significance of the divorce decree, the court observed: “In the former, there is a severance of status and the parties do not remain husband and wife; whereas in the latter, the relation between the husband and wife continues and the legal relationship continues as it has not been snapped.”

The distinction was central to deciding whether the alleged offence continued beyond the ordinary limitation period.

Supreme Court precedent distinguished

The complainant had relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury, arguing that retaining a woman’s istridhan constituted a continuing offence and that limitation therefore did not apply.

The High Court acknowledged the principle but held that the legal position depended on whether the marital relationship had been formally dissolved.

“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,” the court observed.

It further explained that the Supreme Court precedent concerned a situation involving judicial separation, where the legal relationship between the spouses continued.

The order stated that “if 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’.”

Applying this distinction, the High Court held that the alleged retention of istridhan in the present case could not be treated as a continuing offence after the marriage had been dissolved.

Three-year limitation applied

Under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court noted, the limitation period for taking cognizance of offences punishable with imprisonment of up to three years was three years.

The court observed that the complainant had claimed to have sought the return of her belongings since 2011, while the divorce decree had been passed on October 9, 2012. The criminal complaint, however, was filed only in July 2017.

Holding that the claim could have been pursued within three years of the divorce decree, the court concluded that the complaint was time-barred.

In its concluding findings, the court held: “Viewed in the totality of circumstances discussed above, it can safely be held that in the factual circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the offence was a continuing offence.”

It added that the complainant could have claimed the istridhan “at best within three years of the decree of divorce, that is, three years from 09.10.2012.”

Consequently, the court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings, including the summoning order and notice of accusation, along with all subsequent proceedings.

The ruling turns on the specific facts of the case and the effect of the divorce decree on the question of limitation; it does not declare that a woman’s right to recover her istridhan disappears upon divorce.