BRAJ KISHORE SINHA Vs. REKHA SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails in this revision application an order restraining him from operating a locker on certain terms and conditions during the pendency of a proceeding u/S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). Since Opposite party No. 2 is not a necessary party, this revision application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with consent.

(2.) The petitioner prayed for dissolution of his marriage and also for granting a decree of divorce against opposite party No. 1 by initiating a proceeding under S. 13 of the Act.

(3.) The opposite party No. 1 put in a petition supported by her affidavit (Annexure-1) under S. 151 read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and S. 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) for restraining the petitioner from operating Locker No. 105 of the Punjab National Bank, Boring Road Branch, Patna. She alleged that she has kept her ornaments in the said Locker which stands in their joint names and which is operatable jointly by both. The petitioner who has kept the key of the Locker, by bringing the Officers of the said Bank in collusion, wants to take away the ornaments. She wrote a letter to the Manager of the Bank who, however, gave no reply. It appears that she in her turn alleged charge of adultery etc. against the petitioner himself through a separate petition. She also mentioned the ornaments kept in the said Locker. A rejoinder (Annexure-2 to the petition) was filed by the petitioner resisting the prayer of the opposite party No. 1. The petitioner asserted, inter alia, therein that the proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act is not a suit and thus the jurisdiction of a Civil Court as envisaged under the Code cannot be invoked, that the alleged ornaments are neither the property in dispute nor it belonged to her, that the list describing the ornaments is exaggerated, there the locker is not to be operated jointly and that the charge of collusion is also incorrect. The court below restrained the petitioner from operating alone the Locker in question holding that it stands in their joint names giving liberty, however that in case of necessity they, in presence of the authorities of the Bank, and after seeking prior permission of the court, may operate the said Locker.