DURAI ALIAS ADHISESHA SAYANAN Vs. GUNA ALIAS GIRILAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the decree and Judgment dated 4. 3. 1991in O. S. No. 28 of 1990 on the file of the Family Court, Pondicherry.

(2.) THE short facts in the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows: the plaintiff got married the defendant on 23. 4. 1986 in accordance with the Hindu Customs. At the time of her marriage, the plaintiff's parents presented her jewels household articles as described in the plaint schedule as Sridhana properties. The plaintiff lived with the defendant only for two years from the date of marriage. Subsequently, the plaintiff was ill treated by the defendant and treated her cruelly and demanded her to bring more Sridhana properties on that ground he drove her away from his house. At that time, he retained all the jewels and other Sridhana properties with him. Subsequently, the defendant married second wife viz. , Bakkialakshmi and he is living with her. Therefore, the plaintiff did not take any steps for resumption of conjugal rights. The plaintiff demanded the defendant for the return of her Sridhana properties as described in the schedule to the plaint. The defendant had paid any amount towards the marriage expenses. In spite of repeated demands for the return of Sridhana properties, the defendant has not come forward to return the same. The plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice on 15. 2. 1989 calling upon the defendant to return the Sridhana properties, but the defendant has refused to receive the same. Hence the suit for return of the Sridhana properties.

(3.) THE defendant in his written statement would contend that he never ill treated the plaintiff. The marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant is admitted. There was no demand by the defendant for Sridhana properties from the parents of the plaintiff. The plaintiff went to see her parents and relatives with a consent of the defendant, but to his surprise, she did not return. Afterwards, in spite of his repeated request, the plaintiff refused to return the matrimonial home. The averments in the plaint that the defendant had married one Bakkialakshmi for the second time is denied as false. The Sridhana propeprties mentioned in the plaint schedule are not in the possession of the defendant. Certain properties described in the schedule of the written statement are with the defendant and he is willing to return the same. The plaintiff did not leave any of her gold jewels and other properties with the defendant. On the other hand, she has taken away gold chain weighing two sovereigns belonging to the defendant. The plaintiff has to return the marriage saree purchased by the defendant at the cost of Rs. 2,500/ -. Therefore, except the admitted properties, the defendant is not liable to return any other properties mentioned in the plaint schedule property.