Suresh Kumar vs Saroj Bala

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Karnal, Feb., 4, 1986, whereby decree of divorce was passed in favour of the respondent ''wife Saroj Bala against her husband, Suresh Kumar, appellant. An application under S. 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (hereinafter called the Act) was also filed, for returning the articles of dowry. The said application was also contested on behalf of the husband. However, the learned Additional District Judge in the judgment under appeal found that the wife was entitled to take back the articles of dowry listed in the petition dt. July 24, 1985, filed by her. In this appeal, no challenge is being made to the decree of divorce passed in favour of the respondent wife. Herein, the challenge is to the order passed by the Court below on the application July 24, 1985, filed under S. 27 of the Act by the respondent, on the ground that the articles of dowry listed therein could not be said to be the joint property of the parties and therefore, no order could be passed in that behalf under S. 27 of the Act. According to the appellant''s counsel from the nature of the property mentioned therein; particularly the jewellery, it could not be held that it was joint of the parties. At the most, that could be said to be the stridhan of the wife for which no order could be passed under S. 27 of the Act. In support of the contention. the learned counsel relied upon Pratibha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar and Another, . The learned counsel also referred to the statement of the respondent Saroj Bala, dt. Dec. 23. 1985, wherein she admitted that whatever claim she had made in the application was her stridhan and she was the exclusive owner thereof. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Suresh Kumar, appellant, appeared as P.A. 1, and admitted in his examination-in-chief that the furniture, almirah, sewing machine and the ceiling fan are the only articles of dowry which were with him. Therefore, in any case, the respondent was entitled to the said articles being the joint property of the parties.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the considered opinion that in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani''s case (supra). under S. 27 of the Act. an order could be passed only with respect to the property which may belong jointly to the husband and the wife. Even the learned Additional District Judge in the judgment under appeal observed,--

"Respondent himself admits that the items of furniture, ceiling fan, almirah and sewing machine had not been brought by the petitioner (the wife) and were still with him."

In the very nature of things, the said articles could not be said to be the exclusive goods of the wife as the same were being used jointly by both of them. As regards the other articles mentioned in the application dt. July 24, 1985, i.e., the cash and the gold ornaments and the clothes worth Rs. 10,000/- they could not be said to be the joint property of the parties. That being so, the application filed under S. 27 of the Act could not be allowed as such. The order could be passed only with respect to the items of furniture, ceiling fan, almirah and the sewing machine. as admitted by the appellant in his statement as R.W. 1 For the other articles the wife will be at liberty to seek her remedy in accordance with law.

Consequently this appeal is accepted to the extent that under the order of the trial Court as regards the return of the articles under S. 27 of the Act, the wife will only be entitled to take back the items of furniture, ceiling fan, almirah and the sewing machine, as admitted by the husband. With respect to the other articles, the said application shall stand dismissed with no order as to costs.

Appeal partly allowed.