ARUNA MADAN Vs. SUBHASH MADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Aruna Madan has filed this revision petitionagainst the order dated 20.10.1993 of Shri J.D. Kapoor, learned Additional DistrictJudge, Delhi, vide which he directed that an application under Section 27 of theHindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') moved by the petitionerwould be disposed of independently and fixed 9.11.1993 for final disposal of thepetition for divorce filed against her by her husband Shri Subhash Madan,respondent herein.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are thatSubhash Madan (hereinafter referred to as the 'husband') filed a petition fordivorce against Smt. Aruna Madan (hereinafter referred to as the 'wife') on 25.9.85.The proceedings continued for a long period and ultimately the evidence of theparties was closed and the case came up for final arguments for the first time on29.5.1991. A number of applications were moved by the wife. An application underSections 24/26 of the Act was moved by the wife for enhancement of the mainte-nance. This application was disposed of by the Trial Court on 26.5.1992, whichorder was challenged in the High Court wherefrom the stay was ultimately vacatedon 2.4.1993 in Civil Revision No. 409 of 1992. The case came up for final argumentsbefore the learned Trial Court on 20.11.1993 when an application under Section 27of the Act was filed by the wife in which it was inter alia pleaded that after hermarriage she was taken to his house by the husband and the attitude of the husbandand his family members was not cordial towards her since their expectation ofdowry was much more than what was given. It was also pleaded that she wasdeserted by the husband and all herornaments, clothes, valuable household goods,gifts and presents belonging to her, which formed her Istridhan, have been retainedby the husband with him and the details were mentioned in the annexure. A prayerwas, thus, made that the husband be directed to return the items of the Istridhanbelonging to her. The learned Trial Court passed the impugned order and fixed thecase for final arguments.

(3.) I have heard Ms.Geeta Luthra, Counsel for the petitioner/wife, as also Dr.S.Bazaz, Counsel for the respondent/husband. I have also perused the file.