I understand how draining a stridhan dispute can be. You may already be dealing with a broken marriage, separate homes, children's needs and multiple court cases, and now you are wondering whether you must keep appearing in court to recover your own jewellery and gifts. You may be the woman seeking her stridhan, her parent who gave the jewellery, a relative who attended the wedding, or a husband or in-law accused of withholding it. The honest answer is that it depends on the forum. In a criminal case, the complainant and key witnesses usually have to personally testify in a stridhan recovery case, while domestic violence, Family Court and civil routes often allow evidence on affidavit, reducing the burden considerably.

Let me begin with the law. Stridhan is a woman's absolute property, including jewellery, cash and gifts received before, at or after marriage. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar (1985), the Supreme Court held that the husband and in-laws hold stridhan as trustees, and misappropriation amounts to criminal breach of trust. In Maya Gopinathan v. Anoop S.B. (2024), it reaffirmed the woman's absolute ownership. Recovery can be sought through a criminal complaint, a domestic violence application, the Family Court or a civil suit.

Let me start with the criminal route. Criminal breach of trust is punishable under Section 316 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), formerly Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, often alongside cruelty under Section 85 BNS, formerly Section 498A IPC, and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Criminal breach of trust carries imprisonment up to five years under the BNS and is triable by a magistrate as a warrant case. In Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997), the Supreme Court held that refusal to return stridhan on demand constitutes the offence.

In a criminal case, personal testimony is essential. Your police statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is not substantive evidence and can only be used to contradict you under Section 162 CrPC, now Section 181 BNSS. The court decides on sworn testimony tested by cross-examination, because Article 21 guarantees the accused a fair trial.

If you filed a private complaint rather than an FIR, your presence matters even more. You will be examined on oath at the pre-summoning stage under Section 200 CrPC, now Section 223 BNSS. In a warrant case instituted on complaint, where the offence is compoundable, as criminal breach of trust is, the magistrate may discharge the accused if the complainant is absent without reason under Section 249 CrPC, now Section 272 BNSS. Many women lose stridhan cases this way. Always attend, or have your lawyer seek exemption in advance.

The law protects women during investigation. Under Section 160 CrPC, now Section 179 BNSS, a woman cannot be required to attend a police station as a witness. Under the proviso to Section 161(3) CrPC, now Section 180(3) BNSS, statements in offences against women should be recorded by a woman police officer. Police may seize stridhan during investigation under Section 102 CrPC, now Section 106 BNSS, and the court may hand it to the woman on interim custody under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC, now Sections 497 and 503 BNSS, following Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002).

Other witnesses are important in stridhan cases. Parents and relatives who gave jewellery can prove what was given. Jewellers can prove bills. Photographers or relatives can produce wedding photographs and videos showing the woman wearing the jewellery. Bank officials can prove locker operations. Messages demanding return are proved with a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), as held mandatory in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020).

Now the domestic violence route. Under Section 19(8) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the magistrate can direct return of stridhan. In Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury (2016), the Supreme Court held such claims are maintainable and continuing. Under Section 28(2) of the Act, the magistrate may lay down his own procedure, and evidence is often taken on affidavit. In Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan (2022), the Supreme Court confirmed these proceedings are largely civil in nature. Your personal appearance may still be needed for cross-examination, but the overall burden is usually lighter.

The Family Court route also reduces formality. Under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Family Court can decide disputes about property of the parties to a marriage. Under Section 16, evidence of a formal character may be given on affidavit, and Section 15 permits a memorandum of evidence rather than detailed recording. Parties are generally expected to appear in person, and under Section 13, a party has no automatic right to be represented by a lawyer, though courts often permit it. In Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh (2017), the Supreme Court permitted video conferencing in Family Court matters in suitable circumstances.

In a civil suit for recovery, the procedure is set by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Under Order XVIII Rule 4, examination-in-chief is ordinarily given by affidavit, while cross-examination is conducted in person or before a commissioner. Under Order XXVI, the court can issue a commission to examine witnesses who cannot attend. Summons to witnesses are issued under Order XVI. Civil suits take longer, but they reduce the number of times you must testify orally.

Back to the criminal court, you have alternatives to physical attendance there too. In State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003), the Supreme Court upheld video conferencing for evidence. Section 254 BNSS permits audio-video testimony, and Section 530 BNSS allows proceedings in electronic mode. Where attendance would cause unreasonable delay or expense, the court may issue a commission under Section 284 CrPC, now Section 319 BNSS. This helps women who have moved back to their parents' city after separation, and elderly parents who gave the jewellery.

Transfer of the criminal case is also possible. The Supreme Court has frequently transferred matrimonial and related cases for the wife's convenience under Section 406 CrPC, now Section 446 BNSS, as in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay (2001). High Courts can transfer cases within a State under Section 407 CrPC, now Section 447 BNSS. Increasingly, courts prefer video testimony instead of transfer.

If you ignore a summons in criminal court, the court may issue warrants under Section 87 CrPC, now Section 90 BNSS, and take action under Section 350 CrPC, now Section 389 BNSS. As a complainant, your absence may lead to discharge of the accused. If you have a genuine difficulty with a date, inform the court in advance through your lawyer.

If you are the husband or an in-law accused of withholding stridhan, you must attend the criminal trial, though exemption may be granted under Section 205 or Section 317 CrPC, now Sections 228 and 355 BNSS. Under Article 20(3), you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself, and you may testify in your defence only on written request under Section 315 CrPC, now Section 353 BNSS. Arrest safeguards in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), now reflected in Section 35 BNSS, apply, and anticipatory bail is available under Section 482 BNSS.

Marital communications are protected. Under Section 122 of the Evidence Act, now Section 128 BSA, a spouse cannot be compelled to disclose communications made during marriage, and cannot disclose them without consent, except in proceedings between the spouses or where one is prosecuted for a crime against the other. In a stridhan prosecution by the wife against the husband, this exception applies, but relatives cannot rely on it.

When you testify, examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination follow under Sections 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act, now Sections 142 and 143 BSA. Defence lawyers may suggest the jewellery was never given, was taken back by the woman, or belonged to the husband's family. The court can forbid insulting or scandalous questions under Sections 151 and 152, now Sections 155 and 156 BSA. Answer truthfully and refer to your records. Giving false evidence is punishable under Sections 227 and 229 BNS.

Preparation makes a real difference. Prepare a detailed list of items with approximate weight and value. Collect jewellers' bills, wedding photographs and videos, locker records and messages demanding return. Identify relatives who can confirm what was given. Review your earlier statements with your lawyer. Under Section 159 of the Evidence Act, now Section 162 BSA, you may in some circumstances refresh memory from a contemporaneous record. Reasonable expenses can be claimed under Section 312 CrPC, now Section 350 BNSS.

You may not need to testify at all if the dispute is resolved. Criminal breach of trust is compoundable by the woman as owner of the property under Section 320 CrPC, now Section 359 BNSS. Non-compoundable related charges can be quashed on settlement under Section 528 BNSS, following B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012). Court-annexed mediation, confidential under the Mediation Act, 2023, often produces an agreed list and a date for return.

If you face threats, protection is available. Threatening a witness is punishable under Section 232 BNS, and criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS. The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, approved in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India (2018), and Section 398 BNSS apply. Protection orders under Section 18 of the DV Act may also help.

Choosing the right forum can save you many court appearances. You can get tailored advice from Aapka Legal Advice confidentially. Experienced Top Criminal Lawyers in India| Aapka Legal Advice can advise whether to pursue stridhan through a criminal complaint, the DV Act, the Family Court or a civil suit, arrange evidence on affidavit or video testimony, seek interim custody of seized jewellery, and pursue settlement where appropriate.

Aapka Legal Advice also offers consultations with its panel of retired judges, including retired High Court judges, retired District and Sessions Judges and former Family Court judges, who work alongside its criminal lawyers. They can explain which forum is likely to deliver recovery fastest with the least burden on you, and how courts assess stridhan evidence.

If a warrant has been issued, appear voluntarily with your lawyer and seek recall. If the accused was discharged due to your absence, your lawyer can examine whether revision is available. If the court refuses a reasonable request, you may approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS or Article 227.

To sum up, in a criminal case you will usually have to testify in a stridhan recovery case, because criminal breach of trust under Section 316 BNS must be proved by sworn evidence, and a complainant's absence can lead to discharge under Section 272 BNSS. In DV proceedings, evidence is often taken on affidavit under Section 28(2), in the Family Court under Sections 15 and 16 of the Family Courts Act, and in civil suits under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC. Video testimony under Section 254 BNSS, commissions, transfer and settlement can further reduce the burden.

Keep your records organised, tell the truth, and choose your forum wisely with an experienced lawyer. With the right support, and a retired judge's perspective where helpful, recovering your stridhan need not mean endless court appearances. Seek advice early, because the best preparation for anyone asked to testify in a stridhan recovery case begins with the right strategy.