HIMANI TAPAN THATTE ALIAS MS. HIMANI PRADIP KULKARNIversusTAPAN MILIND THATTE

          Digitally
          signed by
          RUSHIKESH
RUSHIKESH VISHNU
VISHNU    PATIL
PATIL     Date:
          2026.09.21
          11:42:24
                                                   1/5                14 FCA.81.2026.odt
          +0530




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 81 OF 2026

                       Himani Tapan Thatte Alias Ms. Himani
                       Pradip Kulkarni                      .. Appellant
                                         Versus
                       Tapan Milind Thatte                       .. Respondent
                                                         …
                       Mr. Kedar J. Patil a/w Ms Sakshi S. Kadam, Mr. Virendra
                       Deshmukh and Mr. Tejas Shinde, for the Appellant.
                       Mr. Narayana B. Suvarna, for the Respondent.
                                                     ...

                                          CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
                                                 ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.

                                          DATED : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026

                       P.C:-

                       1.      The Appeal filed by the Appellant-wife is on two counts,
                       finding fault with the Judgment and Order passed by the
                       Family Court, Pune, dated 12.03.2025, upon her approaching
                       the Family Court seeking dissolution of the marriage. Though
                       the Family Court has dissolved the marriage solemnized
                       between the parties on 02.01.2019 by the impugned judgment,
                       her grievance is that the other prayers made by her in the
                       petition are rejected.

                       2.      Upon hearing the learned counsel for the Appellant and
                       the learned counsel for the Respondent, we would note that it
                       is the present Appellant who approached the Family Court
                       seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The

                       Rushikesh
                                  2/5                14 FCA.81.2026.odt

written statement was filed by the Respondent, raising a
strong contest and denying the allegations of cruelty. Based
upon the pleadings, the Family Court formulated the following
issues for consideration:


     No.                 Issues                    Findings
     1.     Whether the petitioner prove
            that respondent has, after the In the affirmative.
            solemnization of the marriage,
            treated her with cruelty?
     2.     Whether the petitioner is
            entitled to a decree of divorce? In the affirmative.
     3.     Whether the petitioner is
            entitled    for      permanent In the negative.
            maintenance       from     the
            respondent as prayed?
     4.     Whether the petitioner is
            entitled for return of her In the negative.
            stridhan and belongings. from
            the respondent as prayed?
     5.     What Order and Decree?           As per final order.


          The first two issues came to be answered in the
affirmative, but the Issue Nos. 3 and 4, as to whether the
petitioner was entitled to permanent maintenance from the
respondent, as well as whether she was entitled for return of
her stridhan and belongings, were answered in the negative.
The judgment being delivered on 12.03.2025, the Appeal was
instituted by the Appellant-wife in the month of August 2025,
raising a challenge on two aspects, namely, non-return of
stridhan and grant of maintenance.

3.        As far as the claim of amount of maintenance is
concerned, the learned counsel representing the Respondent-


Rushikesh
                                 3/5                  14 FCA.81.2026.odt

husband would submit that the Family Court petition, being
instituted on 08.10.2021, came to be decided on 12.03.2025.
However, the petitioner before the Family Court did not take
out any application seeking interim maintenance and only
relied upon her evidence that was tendered in support of her
claim in the petition seeking divorce. Further, the learned
counsel also informs that recently the petitioner/Appellant,
has performed a marriage on 01.05.2026, and this fact is not
denied by the learned counsel representing her. Admittedly,
upon her marriage, she is not entitled to any maintenance
from the husband.

       We find that even with the Appeal being filed before this
Court, no application for interim maintenance is filed during
the pendency of the Appeal.

4.     As far as the second issue about return of stridhan is
concerned, we find an elaborate discussion on the said point,
which was formulated as Issue No. 4 by the Family Court
Judge. The learned Judge specifically observed thus:


            “36)     A woman's stridhan is not merely a form of
            wealth, it symbolizes the trust reposed in her
            matrimonial family and represents an exclusive
            entitlement safeguarded under the law. However, for
            any such claim to succeed, the burden of proof lies upon
            the petitioner to establish her ownership, possession
            and subsequent misappropriation of the said property.
            In the present case, the petitioner has alleged that her
            gold and silver ornaments were entrusted to her
            mother-in-law for safekeeping but were never returned.
            To substantiate this contention, she has produced
            purchase receipts (Exh. 22 to 24) reflecting
            transactions allegedly evidencing her acquisition of
            these assets prior and after her marriage.

Rushikesh
                                 4/5                   14 FCA.81.2026.odt

            37)      The respondent, on the other hand has
            categorically denied these allegations, asserting that the
            petitioner had taken all her belongings with her upon
            leaving the matrimonial home. While it is true that a
            bare denial, unsupported by any documentary or
            corroborative evidence, may not inspire confidence, the
            same principle applies with equal force to the
            petitioner's case. The purchase receipts submitted by
            the petitioner merely indicate transactions but do not
            establish that the ornaments in question continued to
            remain in her possession or were handed over to the
            respondent's family. Mere production of bank
            statements reflecting monetary transactions, without a
            clear link to the physical possession of the jewellery at
            the time of marriage or its alleged retention by the
            respondent's family, does not sufficiently discharge the
            burden of proof required under law.
            38) Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to adduce
            any independent or corroborative evidence to establish
            that her ornaments were indeed taken by the
            respondent's family for safekeeping. In matrimonial
            disputes, where allegations of misappropriation of
            stridhan are made mere assertion without substantive
            proof cannot be the basis for imposing a legal obligation
            upon the respondent. The absence of any formal
            complaint or contemporaneous record indicating an
            attempt to recover the alleged stridhan during the
            period of cohabitation or immediately after separation
            also casts doubt on the veracity of the petitioner's
            claims.”


       In the wake of the aforesaid observations, the Family
Court concluded that the proposition that stridhan remains
the property of a woman is an absolute one, but its mere
assertion without any evidence to justify a direction for its
return, and in absence of any credible proof of wrongful
retention by the Respondent-husband, her claim came being
rejected.

Rushikesh
                            5/5                 14 FCA.81.2026.odt

5.     On perusal of the aforesaid reasoning and the fact that
the Family Court held the wife disentitled to the return of
stridhan, in our view, is sufficiently justified by supporting
reasons. Therefore, we do not find any legal error in the
judgment of the Family Court.

6.     Since the Appeal filed by the Appellant-wife is restricted
only to these points with which we have dealt, and finding no
merit or substance in the Appeal, we dismiss the same.




(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.)                  (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)




Rushikesh