SANGEETA Vs. SANJAY BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parties were married on 6.5.1987. But later they fell out and Appellant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on 12.4.1989 on ground of cruelty. Along with she filed an application under Section 27 of HMA, claiming return of articles worth Rs, 3,06,885.00 which according to her jointly belonged to both the parties. Trial court passed order dated 29.8.1989 awarding her compensation of Rs. 50.000.00 in lieu thereof instead of Rs. 3,06,885.00.

(2.) Both sides filed appeals against this order. Appellant filed FAO 247/89 and respondent FAO 243/89. Both these appeals were disposed off by First Appellate Court by common order dated 12.5.1994 allowing respondent's FAO 247/89 and setting aside impugned order dated 29.8.1989 awarding Rs. 50,000.00 to appellant. While doing so, First Appellate Court found that trial court had presumed that disputed articles were in the custody of Respondent husband as its order did not marcate whether parties had led any evidence in the matter. It also went a step further to hold that even though evidence regarding Istridhan was recorded; it was not possible to refer to it now. It also noticed that articles claimed by Appellant were stated to be Istridhan, thus falling outside the scope of Section 27 and upon this set aside the impugned order of trial court.

(3.) Appellant has filed this appeal to assail this. Her counsel invited our attention to her application stating that property claimed worth Rs. 3,06,885.00 jointly belonged to the parties to bring it within the ambit of Section 27 of HMA. He also contended that once First Appellate Court had found that her evidence was on record it could not have refused to examine it and set aside the impugned order merely on the ground that trial court had failed to indicate such evidence. Reliance is also placed on Supreme Court Judgment in Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam Vs. Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam ( AIR 1997 SC 3562) to show that Appellants application was maintainable under Section 27 HMA.