1/5 14 FCA.81.2026.odt 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 RUSHIKESH VISHNU PATIL Digitally signed by RUSHIKESH VISHNU PATIL Date: 2026.09.21 11:42:24 +0530 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 solemnization of the marriage, treated her with cruelty? In the affirmative. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce? In the affirmative. 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for permanent maintenance from the respondent as prayed? In the negative. 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for return of her stridhan and belongings. from the respondent as prayed? In the negative. 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