SHAKUNTALA Vs. MAHESH ATMARAM BADLANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-wife and the respondent-husband were married under Hindu rites on 25th September, 1974. On 24th September, 1975 the husband filed a petition (being M.J. Petition No. 7405 of 1975) in the City Civil Court at Bombay for annulment of the marriage on the ground of the wifes relative impotency. A petition for divorce on the ground of desertion was thereafter filed by the husband (being M.J. Petition No. 427 of 1983).

(2.) Consent terms were taken on 10th January 1984 in the petition for annulment. By Clause

(3.) Counsel for the parties then addressed the Court on the questions of alimony, maintenance and the entitlement of the wife to the property claimed by her in her written statement to the petition for annulment. The learned Judge noted the consent terms and the issues that survived in view thereof, namely, (4) Does the respondent prove that she was presented ornaments and articles as stated in para 16 of the Written Statement? (5) Is the respondent entitled to the return of the said ornaments and articles? The learned Judge referred to section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and found that he claim of the wife of the said property was on the basis that it was her exclusive property and not property that belonged jointly to husband and wife. Having regard to the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in (Banoo Jal Daruwalla v. Jal C. Daruwalla) 65 B.L.R. 750, which dealt with a pari materia provision in the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, the learned Judge held that his jurisdiction under section 27 did not cover the said property. Accordingly, he recorded no finding on issue No. 4 quoted above. The learned Judge awarded to the wife maintenance and costs.