\~"- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR ^ ^ DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI T.P.SHARMA AND HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR, JJ. APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT F.A.(M)No.13of2008 Santosh Bhaiya, aged about 25 years, son of Shri Phool Singh Bhaiya, r/o vill. Baghaud, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Presentlv resided at : Qtr No. F-1380, H.T.P.P. Colony, Darri, Korba, Tahsil Katghora, Distt. Korba (CG) VERSUS Smt. Phooleshwari, aged about 24 years, wife of Shri Santosh Bhaiya, R/o Qtr. No. 525/4/A Balco nagar, Tah. And Distt. Korba (CG) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 (1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT. 1984 Shri Roop Naik,counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhijit Sarkar, counsel for the respondent. ORAL JUDGMENT (Passedon 05.08.2010) The following oral judgment of the Court was passed by T.P. Sharma, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 4.1.2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court; Korba in Civil M.J.C. No.6/2007 whereby the Judge, Family Court, Korba has partly decrepd the suit for return of Stridhan to the tune of Rs.83,850/- out of claim of Rs.2,05,320/-. 2 . Shri Roop Naik, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Abhijit Sarkar, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. Judgment impugned and record of Court below perused. 3. The record of Court below reveals that respondent has filed the petition for return of Stridhan by affixing the court fees of Rs.20/- under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It atso appears from the record and judgment "-'^^ ^ and decree impugned that Court below has passed the decree probably assuming jurisdiction under Section 27 ofthe Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submits that noorigjnal document has been filed in support of the claim and respondent has not examined the witnesses to prove such documents. Even otherwise the documents appear to be suspicious. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in accordance with Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the respondent was entitled to claim property belonging to the respondent given at the time of marria^e which does not cover Stridhan i.e. exclusive property of respondent, therefore, he seeks to file independent civil suit for recovery of Sthdhan before the competent forum in accordance with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 6. Considering the prayer of respondent, limited scop.e of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and contention of the appellant, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 4.1.2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Korba in limited jurisdiction in terms of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is hereby set aside. However, the respondent may file a civil suiVclaim before the competent Court having jurisdiction for recovery of Stridhan. 7. No orderasto costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/~ R.L. Jhanwar Judge A^)'<?w^