PUSHPA Vs. SHYAM PRASAD, C.B. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant moved before the family court with a petition seeking two reliefs. One, maintenance. Two, return of patrimony and gold ornaments. Her both claims were refused by the family court. It dismissed her petition. Hence is she in appeal.

(2.) The case of the appellant may be briefly stated as follows: She and the 1st respondent married on 07.11.2005. Respondents 2 to 5 are her in-laws. The appellant was given Rs. 2,50,000/- and 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage. The respondents grabbed her money and gold ornaments. They demanded more dowry. The appellant was sent to her house on 02.05.2006 to enable her to cast her vote in the election which was on the next day. The 1st respondent promised to take the appellant back after the election, but he did not do that till 13.05.2006. What he did was to send her a notice. She rushed to his house, but was not welcomed. She was, however, permitted to stay in her matrimonial home on condition that she would meet the demand for more dowry. She was thereafter treated with cruelty. She was thrown out of the house on 06.06.2006. She is entitled to get back her money, gold ornaments and personal belongings or the value thereof. She is entitled to get an allowance of Rs. 5,000/- per month from her husband for her maintenance.

(3.) The respondents filed a counter-statement jointly. They raised the following contentions: The appellant did not bring Rs. 2,50,000/- or 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments to her matrimonial home. She was only wearing her 'tali'. The 1st respondent was a coolie who could not afford to have a demand of dowry for Rs. 2,50,000/- and 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments or more. The appellant stayed in her matrimonial home only for 15 days and that too intermittently. She always was compelling the 1st respondent to quit his family house and stay with her in her house. She was going to her house as often as she liked ignoring the protest of the respondents. It was therefore the 1st respondent sent the legal notice. What the appellant did on receipt of the said notice was to send goons to her matrimonial home. Her goons on 16.05.2006 committed mischief and theft. The respondents never harassed the appellant.