RAJEEV KUMAR MAHESHWARI Vs. KALPANA MAHESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Husband in the marriage is appellant. He filed suit in respect of property purchased by him in name of his wife. The spouses have fallen out. The suit is for declaration that the purchase is not hit by sub-sequent amendment w.e.f., 1/11/2016 to Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

(2.) Mr. Ashutosh Pratap Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant and Mr. Saroj Giri, learned advocate for respondent. Having heard them it appears there was application dtd. 25/3/2023 made by respondent (wife) under Rule 11 in Order VII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Then came impugned judgment dtd. 24/1/2025. The judgment says, the plaint seeking relief under Sec. 34 in Specific Relief Act, 1963 stands rejected by invoking Sec. 7 of Family Courts Act, 1984 and Sec. 3 and 4 in Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

(3.) It is not necessary for us to take a view on interpretation of Sec. 3 in the Act of 1988 as it stood prior to 1/11/2016. While Mr. Singh submits that the property belongs to his client, Mr. Giri submits, the purchase was made in name of his client, as for her benefit.