SANJAY BANSAL Vs. SANGEETA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of FAO 243/89 filed by appellant-husband and FAO 247/89 filed by respondent-wife.

(2.) FAO 243/89 is directed against an order dated 29.8.1989 of the learned Addl.. District Judge, Delhi by which in an application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act moved by the wife, he awarded her a sum of Rs.50,000.00 in lieu of the articles alleged to be retained by the appellant -husband and which belonged to the respondent-wife either as part of dowry or her Istridhan. In FAO 247/89, the appellant-wife claims that the learned ADJ should have allowed her entire claim of Rs. 3,06,885.00 and not Rs.50,000.00 only.

(3.) I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The Impugned order does not refer to the fact whether any evidence was led by the wife to prove whether her Istridhan articles valued at Rs.3,06,885.00 as shown in Annexure F were actually retained by the appellant-husband or not. It also does not indicate if any evidence was led by the appellant in rebuttal or not. The order, in fact, indicates that learned ADJ simply presumed that those articles must be in the custody of the appellant-husband and, therefore, he came to a conclusion that at least a sum of Rs.50,000.00 be awarded to the wife in lieu of those articles lying with the husband. It is difficult to sustain this order on this point alone.