OM PRAKASH TIWARI Vs. NEETU TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order dt. 2.5.2011 passed by the Family Court, Shadol in Civil Suit No. 1B/11 by which the Family Court rejected an application filed by the appellants under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for dismissal of the suit filed by the respondent against the appellant. The contentions of the appellant before this Court are summarized as under:

(2.) Shri Suyash Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/ respondent submitted that the suit was maintainable u/s 7(1) Explanation (c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 as it was a suit in respect of property of the respondent and for this purpose no reliefs as are envisaged u/s 9, 10 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were required to be sought from the Family Court. It was also submitted that when the suit was filed against the husband and his family members for return of Stridhan, the Family court was having jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit in accordance with law. He has placed reliance to a judgment of the Apex Court in K.A. Abdul Jaleelv. T.A. Shahida, 2003 AIR(SC) 2525, and para 7 of the judgment of the Keral High Court in Suprabha V. Sivaraman K.K. & anr, and submitted that this appeal may he dismissed.

(3.) To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to state factual position of the case. Respondent Smt. Neetu Tiwary filed a suit before the Family Court Shahdol for return of Stridhan against the appellants. Appellant No. 1 Om Prakash Tiwary is the husband of Smt. Neetu Tiwary while the appellant No. 2 is the father-in-law and appellant No. 5 is the mother-in-law. Ramesh Tiwary and Ramayan Tiwary are brother of Om Prakash Tiwary, while Smt. Sunita Tiwary and Smt. Arti Tiwary are wives of Ramesh Tiwary and Ramayan Tiwary respectively. The allegations in the plaint are that certain properties of which details are given in the plaint are her Stridhan which are in possession of the appellants and a decree be passed against the appellants for refund of the Stridhan or to pay Rs. 11,09,241/- in lieu thereof. The suit was contested by the appellants by filing written statement. They had also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. to the effect that the suit was not maintainable in the Family Court as no reliefs, as are envisaged in sections 9, 10 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were claimed and until unless such reliefs are claimed, the property could not have been refunded to the plaintiff u/s 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It was submitted that claiming of main relief as are envisaged u/s 9, 10 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are sine quo non for filing of such suit and until unless such suit is filed the plaintiff was not entitled to claim refund of the Stridhan.