SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Priyanka vs Prince 2 Fam/54/2015 Smt. … on 14 May, 2018

AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Reserved on 09.05.2018
Delivered on 14.05.2018
First Appeal (Misc.) No. 53 of 2015
(Arising out of judgment and decree dated 30.01.2015 of the Additional District Judge,
Sarangarh in Civil Suit No. 4A/2015)

 Smt. Priyanka W/o Prince Agrawal, D/o Anil grawal Aged About 25 Years R/o
Champa, Tahsil And District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
—- Appellant
Versus

 Prince S/o Pawan Kumar Agrawal Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Sarangarh,
Raigarh Road, Sarangarh, Tahsil-Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh,
Chhattisgarh
—- Respondent

And

First Appeal (Misc.) No. 54 of 2015
 Smt. Priyanka W/o Prince Agrawal, D/o Anil Agrawal Aged About 25 Years At
Present R/o At Champa Tahsil And District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

—- Appellant
Versus

 Prince S/o Pawan Kumar Agrawal Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Sarangarh,
Raigarh Road, Sarangarh, Tahsil-Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh,
Chhattisgarh

—- Respondent

For Appellant : Smt. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate
For Respondent : Shri Aditya Bharadwaj, Advocate

Hon’ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge
C.A.V. JUDGMENT

1. As these appeals arise from a single judgment, they are being

disposed off by this common judgment.

2. In these appeals, the challenge is levied to the judgment and decree

dated 30.01.2015 of the Additional District Judge, Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh,
2

Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit No. 4A/2015 to the extent that allegedly he has

given the finding that appellant had subjected respondent with cruelty, and

she is not entitled to get the property / Stridhan described in Schedule A of

the plaint.

3. This is admitted by respondent that name, address and other

particulars shown in the title of the petition are correct, both the parties are

hindu and governed by Mitakshara Branch of Hindu Law, marriage of both

the parties was solemnised on 11.05.2011 in accordance hindu religion and

Marwadi rites and rituals at Sarangarh. She is living in her maternal house

since 28.08.2011. She had lodged the report in police station Sarangarh

regarding dowry harassment. A case was registered against him and his

family members under Section 498A IPC.

4. In brief, the appellant’s case is that seven lakh rupees cash, ornaments

of silver and gold, clothes and other properties were given to respondent as

dowry which are shown in Article A. After the marriage respondent and his

family members started to harass her on account of dowry. On 29.09.2011,

he ousted her.

5. In brief, the respondent’s case is that this Court has no jurisdiction to

order of returning back of Stridhan. Appellant was not taking interest in

domestic work and frequently used to go in her maternal house. On

28.08.2011 she voluntarily went in her maternal house.

6. After conclusion of the trial of Civil Suit No. 4A/2015 filed by appellant

and Civil Suit 12A/2014 filed by respondent, the trial Court disposed them off

by aforesaid common judgment. Being aggrieved, appellant preferred these

appeals.

7. Smt. Nirupama Bajpai, counsel for the appellant vehemently argued
3

that in Civil Suit No. 4A/2015, divorce granted to appellant but the trial Court

given the finding that appellant treated respondent with cruelty. Stridhan is

her exclusive property, but trial Court committed error by not ordering for its

return to appellant. Thus, the aforesaid judgment and decree may be set

aside on the point of cruelty and Stridhan.

8. Shri Aditya Bharadwaj, counsel for the respondent argued that the trial

Court had not given any finding about cruelty committed by appellant,

Stridhan is out of purview of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

(hereinafter called as ‘ the Act of 1955’), thus, appeals may be dismissed.

9. First and foremost question for adjudication before this Court is that,

whether the trial Court has committed gross illegality while allegedly giving

the finding that appellant had committed cruelty with respondent.

10. In the aforesaid judgment, trial Court had not given any finding

regarding alleged cruelty committed by appellant. The trial Court had given

the finding that appellant had deserted respondent which is not challenged

by appellant.

11. Looking to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this Court

finds that the trial Court has not given finding that appellant allegedly had

committed cruelty with respondent, thus, no question arises about

committing gross illegality by the trial Court regarding this matter.

12. Second question for consideration before this Court is that whether the

appellant is entitled to get property/ Stridhan described in Schedule A from

respondent in aforesaid divorce petition filed by her.

13. It would be pertinent to mention the provisions of Section 27 of the Act

of 1955, which reads as under:-

“27. Disposal of property – In any proceeding under this Act, the Court
4

may make such provisions in the decree as it deems just and proper
with respect to any property presented, at or about the time of marriage
which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife.”

14. In Neel Kanth Jaiswal v. Manju Lata Jaiswal (Smt.)

{AIR2011Chh6} this Court has held in para 15 16 as under:-

“15. The scope of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is limited
and only order relating to properly presented at or about the time of
marriage may he made by the Court dealing with the issue triable
under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 belonging jointly to both the
husband and the wife. The claim of the respondent in the pesent suit
shows that she has filed the suit for recovery of Stridhan belonging to
her and owned by her. Provisions of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 does not provide the remedy for recovery of property other
than the property presented at or about time of marriage belonging to
husband and wife therefore, even otherwise independent suit or claim
for recovery of Stridhan was not competent in the divorce proceedings.
By filing present suit respondent has claimed the return of Stridhan
which is maintainable in accordance with Clause (c) of Explanation 2 of
Clause 1 of Section 7 of the Family Court Act, 1984, which reads as
follows:

Section 7. (1)**** (a)****(b)*******

[Explanation : The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section
are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:

(a)*****************(b)*******************

(c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect

to the property of the parties or of either of them;

(d)**********(e)**********(f)**********(g)******************

16. In the light of aforesaid provisions the Court dealing with the case
under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was not competent to decide the issue
relating to return of Stridhan in terms of Section 27 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.”

5

15. In the case in hand AW1 Priyanka Mittal does not say clearly and

strongly in her statement given on oath that alleged property/ Stridhan

mentioned in Article A shall be returned to her from respondent though the

trial Court has wrongly mentioned in para 51 of the impugned judgment

regarding this matter. She also does not say clearly and strongly that alleged

property / Stridhan belongs jointly to both her and him.

16. Looking to the aforesaid judicial precedent laid down in Neel Kanth

Jaiswal (supra) it is unequivocal that provisions of Section 27 of the Act of

1955, does not provide remedy for recovery of the property other than

property presented at or about time of marriage belonging to husband and

wife. In other words, a family Court while dealing with the matter under the

Act of 1955, is not competent to order for returning back of Stridhan in terms

of Section 27 of the Act of 1955. For returning back the Stridhan an

independent suit would lie in accordance with the provisions of Clause (c) of

Explanation 2 of Clause 1 of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

17. Looking to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this Court

finds that, appellant is not entitled to get property/ Stridhan described in

Schedule A from respondent in aforesaid divorce petition filed by her.

18. After the complete appreciation of evidence discussed herebefore, this

Court finds that both the appeals are devoid of merits, thus, the order of the

trial Court relating to the return of alleged property / Stridhan is affirmed as to

above extent. The appeals are dismissed.

19. Appellant shall bear her own costs as well as costs of respondent.

Sd/-

(Sharad Kumar Gupta)
JUDGE

kishore

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh