SURAJ PARKASH Vs. MOHINDER PAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will also dispose of F. A. O. No. 12-M of 1987 as both I these appeals arise out of order of Additional District Judge, dated 12-11-1986, passed under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the 'act' ).

(2.) THIS is an unfortunate dispute as a result of rupture of the marriage so happily celebrated on 25-11-1984 between Suraj Parkash wife and Mohinder Pal husband. A month after the marriage its happiness gave way to bitterness and differences developed between the couple with the result that Suraj Parkash wife filed an application under S. 10 of the Act for a decree of judicial separation which was allowed on 17-12-1985 and later on a decree of divorce by consent was passed on 6-2-1987. During the pendency of the petition under S. 10 of the Act, wife also moved an application under S. 27 of the Act on 25-7-1965. Ordinarily this should have been disposed of along with the main petition filed under S. l0 of the Act for judicial separation. However, it appears that no orders were passed on this application under S. 27 of the Act and was subsequently decided on 12-11-1986. By virtue of the said order, the learned Additional District Judge directed the husband to return certain articles as detailed of the last para of the judgment. Dissatisfied with the said order, both the parties have filed separate appeals F. A. O. No. 239-M of 1986 has been filed by the wife whereas the other F. A. O. No. 12-M of 1987 has been filed on behalf of the husband. In the application under S. 27 of the Act filed by the wife, it was stated that since there are no circumstances of the compromise between the parties, the! dowry articles mentioned in the accompanying list may be ordered to be returned to her. In the reply filed on behalf of Mohinder Pal husband, he raised certain preliminary objections to the effect that the petition was not maintainable as the petition under S. 27 of the Act could only be filed in a, petition under S. 13 of the Act and not under S. 10 of the Act. Moreover, since it was a love marriage, the question of the dowry etc. did not arise. The receipt of the articles mentioned in the list attached with the application allegedly received by Mohinder Pal in the dowry at the time of his marriage was denied, It was also pleaded that the wife could not claim more than Rs. 5000/under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled under S. 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act to any articles as mentioned in the petition? If so, its effect? OPP 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 3. Relief. The parties were allowed to lead evidence. Under issue No. 1, the learned trial Judge, concluded that "all these circumstances, when considered collectively do go to suggest that I the petitioner never trusted the respondent or her parents-in-law and kept all her jewellery with her and when she left the matrimonial home on 8-3-1985 in the absence of her husband and her parents-in-law, she carried, back the same to her parents' house. It has also come in evidence that while leaving the matrimonial home on 8-3-1985 she carried an, attachee case or two with her. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner regarding the jewellery is dismissed. *however, it was held that the following articles given to the petitioner in dowry are still lying with the respondent and latter was directed to return the same :- (1) One Fridge. (2) Steel Almirah. (3) One double bed (4) Washing Machine. (5) An iron petti containing various types of clothes. (6) 3 or 4 attachee case containing clothes for the bride and bridegroom.