P MAHARAJAN Vs. C K SAROJINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the husband against the decree granting judicial separation to the respondent wife as also custody of the minor son to her with further direction that the appellant is to return back some movables including ornaments as per list to the respondent. During the hearing, Mr. Satapathy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, did not press the appeal regarding the order of judicial separation or custody of the child and has confined his submissions only to the direction for return of the movables.

(2.) The respondent in her petition, furnished a list of movables claimed by her, in para. 14(iii) as being gold ornaments consisting of gold bangles, gold necklaces, earwears, gold rings, gold necklace containing Mangalsutra presented by the appellant, one gold chain presented to the minor son by the respondent's brother, besides one Phillips Radio purchased by the respondent. Apart from such articles, some other articles not specified were also claimed. Mr. Satpathy assails the order for return of the articles contending that S.27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955) does not authorise the Court to pass an order for return of ornaments or property belonging to the wife and further neither the existence of such ornaments or articles nor the fact of their being in custody of the appellant has been satisfactorily proved. There was no issue on the point and hence the direction is not sustainable.

(3.) Developing his submissions, Mr. Satapathy has argued that S.27 of the Act only vests jurisdiction in the Court to pass orders which it deems just and proper in respect of property which had been presented at or about the time of marriage and belong jointly to the husband and the wife. Since the ornaments claimed to be presented to the respondent at the time of the marriage do not constitute joint property of both the husband and the wife and are the exclusive property of the wife, a direction in that respect is beyond the purview of the powers of the Court under S.27 of the Act. Besides, the Phillips radio and the gold chain stated to be presented to the minor son by his uncle are neither joint properties of the husband and the wife nor are the presents given at or about the time of marriage and no direction can be issued in respect of those articles. Besides, the respondent also could not press his claim against the appellant regarding "other articles" without specifying them and the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is, on that account, vitiated.