MANJIT KAUR Vs. INDERJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was married to the respondent on 29-11-1983. It appears that certain proceedings were initiated soon thereafter. The exact particulars are not on the record. However, it is clear that on 28-2-1986, the wife Smt. Manjit Kaur filed a petition under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She claimed an amount of Rupees 8,500/- on account of price of the jewellery, the various articles given in the dowry, the cash paid to the husband as also on account the value of the silver ornaments. The learned Additional District Judge accepted her claim for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- vide order dated 6-9-1986. She was awarded Rs. 33,000/- on account of gold jewellery. Rs. 15,000/- on account of the value of miscellaneous articles. Rs. 1,700/- in cash and Rs. 300/- by way of price of the silver ornaments. Aggrieved by the order, the husband filed an appeal. It was contended that the trial Court had erred in accepting the claim with regard to the amount of Rs. 33,000/- for gold jewellery. He contested the orders even regarding payment of Rs. 1,700/- by way of cash and Rs. 300/- on account of silver jewellery. The plea of the respondent-husband having been accepted by the learned single Judge, the wife has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) Mr. R. K. Battas, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the learned single Judge has erred in placing a very narrow construction on the provisions of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. According to the learned Counsel, the wife is entitled to recover the amount as claimed by her and that the learned single Judge has erred in varying the order passed by the learned trial Court. Is it so?

(3.) Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides as under :-