BIJOY KRISHNA GHOSAL Vs. NAMITA GHOSAL NEE GANGULY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application at the instance of the husband is directed against the order of learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore passed in Matrimonial Suit No.12/ 1983. The wife opposite party filed a Matrimonial suit for divorce in 1983. Along with suit she filed an application under S.27 of the Hindu Marriage Act for disposal of the property presented to her at or about the time of marriage. She also prayed for an order of permanent alimony under S.25 of the Act. She was granted permanent alinomy @a Rs. 200.00 p.m. The Matrimonial suit was decreed resulting in an order of divorce between the parties. But no order was passed on the petition under S.27 which was filed at the instance of the opposite party at the time of passing the decree in the Matrimonial suit. Subsequently, after the passing of the decree, the learned Additional District Judge by his order No.51 dated 6-5-87 took up the application under S.27 of the Act for consideration. He on consideration of the evidence of both sides allowed the application of the opposite party on contest and directed the husband, the present revisionist to return the articles mentioned in the schedule of the said application to the wife within 1 month of the passing of the order. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the husband has come up in revision. The petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay as there was delay of about 3 weeks in filing the application for revision. We are satisfied with the grounds taken in the application and condone the delay.

(2.) Sri P.K.Roy, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in this revision has urged that the impugned order under S.27 of the Hindu Marriage Act was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court is without jurisdiction. The main thrust of his argument that the language of S.27 of the Act clearly indicates that the Court may make such provisions in the decree as it deems just and proper with respect to any property presented at or about the time of marriage in any proceeding under the Act and that the impugned order was not passed at the time of passing the decree. It has further been urged that the learned trying Judge did not make any provision in the decree for disposal of the property and as such the order passed long after the decree under S.27 of the Act was passed without jurisdiction.

(3.) The learned trying Judge in his judgment held when the point was urged before him that there was no impediment in passing the order under S.27 of the Act after the passing of the decree. He did not of course, give any reason in support of his conclusion.