•h'.. \\\ ^' ^. '° ^yy ...•""".,'^"'\..-i'r k*»*'.^<l'31 ^' . .^>- BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT QFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) FIRST APPEAL N0. /f /2006 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Smt. Pumima Sahu, aged about 20 years, wife of Shri Rakesh Sahu, resident of C.S.E.B. Colony, Super C-418, Korba (East), Police Station and District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS ^ Rakesh Sahu, aged about 29 ^-^ years, son of Shri Manmohan Lal Sahu, resident of Nariyara, Police Station Pan-igarh, Tahsil and District Janjgir-Campa (C.G.) FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FAi<^/ €OV'Pj:tf.ACT. 198^ \\0 ^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH : BILASPUR Division Bench : Hon'ble ShriSatishK.AgnLhotri and Hon'ble Shri R.L.Jhanwar, JJ. First Appeal (IVI) No. 19 of 2006 Appellant : Smt. Purnima Sahu Versus / , Respondent : Rakesh Sahu. FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 (11 OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 Present: Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, counsel for the appeltant. Shri Indrasen Sahu, counsel for the respondent. •' ORAL JUDGMENT (Passedon 15.01.2010) The following oral judgment of the Court was delivered by R.L.Jhanwar, J. /S-./.c 1) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2006 passedby the Principal Judge, Family Court, Korba, in civil Suit No. 41-A/2005 whereby the Family Court has rejected the claim of 'Stridhan' and maintenance of the appellant. 2) Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal in short are that the appellant and respondent are governed by the Hindu Law and are legally wedded husband and wife. Marriage between the parties took place on 15.06.2003 and the parties were leading a happy married life. After one month, it is stated in pleadings, the appellant was subjected to cruelty by the family members of her husband for not bringing adequate dowry. Ultimately, theappellant was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and was sent to her maternal home at Korba where she was residing. On 28.08.2003 when the appellant was taken by her father to her husband, the non-applicant straightway refused to accept her, which led to file a report at Police Station, Darri on 28.01.2004 and 24.01 .2004 at Pamgarh Police Station. Apart from this, a report was also lodged before the Collector of Korba and Janjgir and Superintendent of Police, Janjgir. Despite this, no action has been taken against the non-applicant and his family members. Ultimately, at the instance of Woman Consultancy Center and on the basis of its decision, Station House Officer, Darri was entrusted to take action against the non-applicant. ; 3) It is also stated in the pleadings of the appeflant that non-applicant is earning Rs.12,000/- per month by doing contract works. tn addition to this, he is also having income of Rs.1,00,0007- from agricultural tand measuring 14.28 acres. Since the appellant was deserted and no action has been taken against the non-applicant/husband, the appellant was prompted to file an application under Section 13 ofthe Hindu Marriage Act praying for dissolution of marriage between them. 4) Controverting the allegations made against the non-applicant, the non-applicant did not file any written statement. On the basis of averments pleaded by the appellant and after giving an opportunity to the parties, the petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was decreed by the Family Court vide impugned judgment and decree. 5) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the impugned judgment and decree and record of the Court below. 6) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that according to order dated 27.08.2005 the non-applicant/husband was ready to return ^...S:SSK?7^ !.,/ ^' '<. ^a kif A.' ^ 1, fi ^ag,^,. | \'8. 'fe, ;~^ f^ 'Stridhan' and other amount including maintenance amount and for that he prayed for time. But till date the non-applicant did not return 'Stridhan', thus, this appeal before this Court praying for 'Stridhan' amongst other reliefs. 7) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the impugned judgment and decree argued that there was no pleading about 'Stridhan' in the petition before the Family Court and the Family Court did also not frame any issue on this aspect. 8) In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the parties, we have minutely examined the pleadings and evidence available on record. 9) After perusal of record, it is evident from the( petition under Section 13 of the Hind.u Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage that there were no details of 'Stridhan' mentioned except prayer for returning 'Stridhan' and maintenance amount. On perusal of paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment and decree, it is also evident that merely a photocopy of 'Stridhan' was produced but could not lead any evidence thereof. Even in appeal before this Court, the appellant has not been able to lead any evidence on this aspect. Since the appellant was unable to prove the document i.e. photocopy of Stridhan, the learned Family Court has arrived at a conclusion that merely a photocopy whereof was produced, which is not sufficient and in the absence of any details whereof, it was impossible for him to grant relief on this aspect. However, the learned Family Judge decreed the suit granting the appellant decree for dissolution of marriage and maintenance amount of Rs.750/- which was already granted in M.J.C.No.25/2005 filed under Section 125 ofthe Cr.P.C. by the appellant. •s-yf^. ly 5s^"» s"<>; v' •:,. \. 10) In her evidence, the appellant (A.W.1) has requested for separation from her husband since she was subjected to cruelty by the family members of her husband but on the aspect of 'Stridhan', her evidence completely remain sitent. At the time of arguments before the Family Court she has produced merely a photocopy of 'Stridhan' which should have been proved by the appellant by leading cogent evidence thereof. But the appellant did not do so. A duty is also cast on the appellant to prove the document i.e. photocopy of 'Stridhan' when it was produced before the Family Court. Since the appellant has not been able to prove any case on the aspect of 'Stridhan, we are of the;opinion that she has no right to recover it. So far as dissolution of mart-iage and maintenance amount is concerned, nothing was argued by the counsel for the appellant on this aspect in this appeal. Since the Family Court while decreeing the suit for dissolution of marriage already awarded maintenance amount at Rs.750/- per month, we see no reason to interfere on this aspect. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court warranting interference by this Court. 12) Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13) Decree may be drawn accordingly. — Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhaiiwar Judge tlfft- 'J