SHASHIKANT MALVIYA Vs. PARVATI MALVIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent filed a petition under Sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth 'the Act') for declaration that her marriage with the appellant be declared void. She further claimed that in case it was not possible to award aforesaid declaration by a decree, then a decree for divorce be passed. The Civil Suit No. 294-A/96 filed by the respondent was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 14. 5. 1997 by 4th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur. The respondent filed First Appeal No. 310/97. This Court, by judgment and decree dated 11. 11. 1997, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suit. A decree, declaring that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was null and void, was passed because it was held that the appellant had a spouse living at the time of the marriage with the respondent. Having declared that the respondent was entitled to declaration that her marriage with the appellant was null and void, this Court (Hon'ble Shri N. K. Jain, J.) had also given a direction in the following words : Para 11: "the appellant has also made application under Section 27 of the Act for return of the property allegedly given in dowry to the respondent. This application is disposed of with the direction that the Executing Court shall hold enquiry into the application and in case the respondent-husband is found in possession of any such property presented to him by the appellant or her family members on or about the time of marriage, the same shall be ordered to be returned or cost thereof to be paid to the appellant. A decree be drawn up accordingly. "

(2.) ACCORDINGLY, the learned trial Judge made an enquiry and passed the judgment and decree (though styled as order) dated 29. 1. 1998 to the effect that the appellant was in possession of the articles mentioned in the application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 27 of the Act and, therefore, the appellant was ordered to return those articles mentioned in the application. Accordingly, a decree was also passed.

(3.) IN this appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the finding recorded by the Court below is liable to be set aside because it was contrary to Section 27 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that only those articles would be returned which were given to the appellant and the respondent jointly at the time of marriage. It was further argued that the Court below had traversed beyond the requirement of Section 27 of the Act and passed the impugned order wrongly. Moreover, learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the conclusion of the Trial Court regarding the receipt of the articles by the appellant. His contention was that an exaggerated claim under Section 27 of the Act was being made on behalf of the respondent. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the finding recorded by the Court below was wrong.