F.A.O.No.M- 160 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.M- 160 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.01.2009 Lichhmi ...Appellant Versus Dilbag ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner before this Court is the wife whose plea under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for the return of the dowry articles under reference, was partly declined by the learned Trial Court. The Trial Court, however, ordered the return of articles indicated in Ex. P-1 as that document had been conceded by the respondent-husband himself. The only issue framed pertained to the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner to the dowry articles of Istridhan mentioned in the list attached with the petition. Learned Trial Court recorded the following finding on the basis of material available on the file:- “The petitioner has miserably failed to prove that all the articles mentioned in Ex. P1 were given to the respondent at the time of the marriage. There is no evidence to show that from where those items were got prepared or purchased. Without any evidence, it cannot be presumed that all these articles were F.A.O.No.M- 160 of 2008 -2- **** given at the time of the marriage. More so, from the perusal of list Ex. P1 it is clear that some of the items were given at the time of 'Tikka' ceremony (engagement) or exclusively for the use of the relatives. They do not fall within the category of 'Istridhan.' As per opinion of our own Hon'ble High Court expressed in Vijay Kumar's case (supra), the Court cannot direct to return the gold ornaments, cloths and cash. So in these circumstances the respondent cannot be directed to return the articles as mentioned in Ex. P1.” Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to argue that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge proceeds on a factually incorrect premise. Learned counsel is also not in a position to indicate to this Court any evidence on the basis thereof it could be proved that items other than those mentioned in Ex. P-1 had been purchased from anywhere. If dowry articles are purchased from the market, the party purchasing it ought to be in position to produce the cash receipt thereof. If new ornaments are brought into being by melting the conventional ornaments, even then a party averring that should be in a position to prove the payment of melting charges which are fairly high in the market. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge cannot be faulted on any valid score. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. January 22, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge