1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR First Appeal No. 1259 of 2009 Smt. Rakhi W/o Neelkumar @ Chandrakumar Shahu, Aged about 23 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Pyarelal Shahu, 105, Sahkarya Nagar, Near Gajanan Nagar, Wardha Road, Nagpur. ...VERSUS... Shree Neelkumar @ Chandrakumar Shahu S/o Khorbahra Shahu, Aged about 30 years, Occu. Service, R/o Kaikadi Nagar, Near Sham Nagar, Beltarodi Road, Wardha Road, Nagpur. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- Mr. M.W.Harsulkar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mrs. Mayuri Deshmukh, Advocate for the Respondent. C ORAM : D.B.BHOSALE ; and PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 13th August, 2010. 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] By this appeal, the appellant/wife has challenged the findings recorded by the Family Court, Nagpur on the point of return of her articles. Her claim of the articles has been rejected by the impugned judgment dated 12/12/2008. By this judgment, the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce. 2 3] Learned counsel for the appellant/wife invited our attention to the list of articles placed at Annexure A-3 of the appeal to say that the claim of the articles mentioned in the said list was not considered by the Family Court. He invited our attention to the evidence of the parties so also to the original “Samzouta Patra” (compromise deed) (exh.29) and other material that was placed before the Family Court. 4] We have perused the evidence so also the original ‘Samzouta Patra’, which is placed on record. It appears that the appellant/wife while leaving the house of the respondent/husband had taken away all her belongings including the jewellery mentioned in the original ‘Samzouta Patra’. It is against this backdrop, the Family Court, in paragraph 11, has rejected the claim of the appellant/wife by making following observations : “The petitioner has also claimed return of her gold and silver ornaments from the respondent. In her cross-examination, attention of the petitioner was drawn to “Samzouta Patra” dt. Nil (Exh.29). The respondent admitted that Ex.29 was signed by her. She further admitted that Exh.29 was also signed by her mother Amita and father Raju as also by her maternal grand father (Nana) Nakul. She tried to explain away the transaction evidenced by Ex.29 by branding it as false. There is however, no explanation forthcoming as to why such a document was scripted. Therefore, I am not prepared to place reliance on her version that Ex.29 was scripted in order to make out a false case that she had carried away all her belongings and articles. I must therefore, answer point No.3 in the negative and it is answered accordingly. Consequently point no.4 also is answered in negative.” 3 5] Learned counsel for the appellant/wife could not point out from the record that at the time of leaving the house, she left the articles mentioned in Annexure A-3 and took away only few articles as mentioned in “Samzouta Patra”. That apart, the respondent/husband has denied the case of the petitioner that the articles mentioned in Annexure A-3 were left by her while leaving the house. 6] In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant wife and, in our opinion, the Family Court has rightly rejected her claim of the articles. 7] Hence, the First Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale