BABULAL YADAV Vs. SONU YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Finding conflict between the judgments rendered by Division Bench of this Court in FAM No.61/2016 (Smt. Devika Joshi v. Shri Deepak Joshi 2016 SCC OnLine Chh 2145), decided on 22/7/2016, holding that 'independent suit under Sec. 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955') would be maintainable for return of stridhan' and another Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Babita alias Gyatri v. Modprasad alias Pintu Kheersai Patel and others AIR 2018 Chhattisgarh 40 holding that 'application for return of stridhan under Sec. 27 of the Act of 1955 is not maintainable', Division Bench of this Court while hearing this F.A.(MAT) No.40/2022 preferred against the judgment and decree dtd. 23/12/2021 passed by the Family Court, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No.216A/2018, has referred the matter to Hon'ble the Chief Justice to be placed before larger Bench to answer the following stated question: -

(2.) Pursuant to the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice (one of us), the matter has been placed before us for consideration. In order to answer the reference, it would be appropriate to notice the two judgments of this Court leading to the conflicting opinion and further leading to the reference before us: -

(3.) In Smt. Devika Joshi (supra), Division Bench of this Court dealing with the issue and relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another (1985) 2 SCC 370 has held that Sec. 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, 'the Act of 1984') provides alternative remedy to the wife to recover stridhan by a properly constituted suit and an independent suit under Sec. 27 of the Act of 1955 is, thus, maintainable for which the Family Court has been conferred jurisdiction under Sec. 7(1) read with Explanation (c) of the Act of 1984, and it has been observed as under: -