jAnssil/s??'^ ^' AT BILAS First Appea! W.) N".21 of 2006 DB: Hon'b ie Mr.T. P. Sharma. H"n'b!e .V.r.R.L.Jhflnwar. JJ. Sn't.SwiQsstfl Sinoh. Aosd ".bout-29 years D/o-Narayan Singh, W/o-Shri Jeetendrc Pratap Sinqh. R/'o Near Hotei Sunaiiya, Sanjay Ncuar, Vi/ard NQ.IO, Thcna-Korba, Tehsi! & Distt.- Korba (C.G.) SU5 Jsetendra Pratap • Singh, Agsd About-31 yecrs. S/o-fiuiab Singh. R/o-'Vi flaQe-Podi(Lafc), Thana-Paii, Tshsii-Pali Distt.-Korba (C.G') (RRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILV COURTS ACT 1984) Pr'esent ; Aa.r. Vinay Pandey, counse! for the appellant. Mr.Vivek Shrivastava. counset for the respondent. (Passed on l5T" September, 2009) The judgment of the Court was deliyersd by T.P.Shsr'sns. J.:- 1- The cppe!!csn+ has fi!ed this appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (m short the .Act, 1984') cgainst the judgntent and d^cree dctt^d 26.8.2006 posssed by l4ie ^JudQe, FQHn'!y Court, Korbo, i" Ciyit AA-J'.C. No.03/2006 whersby ^^d whs!nsuncl@r !$<!med J^udfts Fami!y Cour't has dismissed the c'a"" of rstur'n of Stridhan filed on beha!f of the a"Del lant- 2. Judgment aid decree is challenged on 'ttie ground that ths Cour't be'ow h<is "ot consictered thci eyidsncs Qdduced on beh^lf of the Qppellant cyid thereby comwitt'ed Hlsgaiit^. 3. Brief fac+s leading to fi!ing of this oppea! 's that the appeHant onc! the respondent are legal'y wedded husbnnd and wsfe- The appelltnt becaine annoyed by ths decree of divorce dated 27.2.2006 passed by the -Judge, Fam'!y Court, Korbo, in Case No.52-A/2005. After decree of d'vorce, the pr'esent appel!ant has fifed the petition for return of Stridhan giyen at the time of marriage and has filed Annexure -A conta"img the I'st of art'cles. The respondent has contested the ccsse w.d pleaded that the respondent has not received ony articles of the apse'laft or hrts not receiyed rtnv o.rtic!®s as' BtndhGn fr'oi?! the appe!!dnt or her relatiyes at the time of marriage. After affording cn opportun't^ of hcar'ing to th$ pc'rties, learlnftd J'udgs/ FGmily Court has ciismissed the pet'tio". 4. We have heard leamed counse! for the parties and perused the jud(j"'ent a"d dscree ond r'ecord of the Cour't below. 5. LearRed counsei for the aDDetlant sub'nits that at the time of -ffy marriage Stfidhan has bee" 9iye" to the respo"dait a"d the r^srt<?!nd$nt hrts n<?t rsturisd the sosne.. Tl^s resoondsnt is unde?' obhciQtion to r'etur'p ths srtme. but hos not F%tumsd t^ie srtms. Learned counsel furt+'er subtTiits that the appeliant ond her relatives hays Dfoved 1f1ft fQCt that SffidhQn ^nev^ aiysn c't 1tift time of n'arriaQe ond the resDondent hiwself h<1ts ctdmittsd in h's evid^ftce tti^t soms Qrticles hsve been giye" nt ths tiin®of Tt'srr'iagfS. 6. On ths other hasid, iudrt!iflftnt <xnd decrse intpuQisd is supoorted' on behalf of counse! for the respondent o"d submits that the "ppe'lcnt was ur'der obligation to pr'oye 1+se fact that 'Ae appeilant aid her" re!rttiyfts hcEy^ Qiye?i articies rts StHdhQH Qt ths ti^s of ^CTrioiQs to -t ^ <>. tiie respondent and the respondent has not re'"jt'he,d the same to the )^J!ar*t ond \y\ the ab^^nce of such Dr'o\/<s* the resonr11de?it is not liable to r'etur" any a-ticles. 7. I" order to appreciate the contentions of the pirties, we hnve e-xan'ined the eyidence adduced on behalf of the partles. This is a pe+ition of return bf .Str/'d/ian oftsr decree of diyorce- The appellont and her wi+nesses "amely AA,a"oj Kuwar Agr'awa! (PW-2), Koma! Prasad (PW-3) aid <5onesh Singh (PV/-4) haye deposed that at the time of marr'iage they had giyen sopha, co'our T.V., C.D-, a'mira and utensil as Stridhan, but the responderit has not re+urned the same, even cfter passing of the decwe of divorce- The respondent has denied the cllegation and deposed that "o artides were giye" to him- Even he did not know what ar'ticles were given by fa+her of the appeilent at the tirne of mnr'r'Mge to the appellant. But when 1+)e appe!!a"t left him the 'ellflLit has taken the artic!es which she has receiyed at the time of morrmo.e, 8. The burde" to proye the fact that Sffdhan was giyen to 1+ie respondent was upon ihe oppslfant. The s^pe!!ar!t has filed list of articles- She has specifically deposed in para 6 of h.er cross-exarnination that she has prepared the list of articies after her mcr'r'iage. The appeHant has excmined Komal Prosad PW-S) who has specifica!!y ad""tted in para-4 of his cr'oss-exantinotion 1+i.at two copyof list was prepared at •rfie time of marr'iage ond yvari both tiie partles- Both copy of !ist wcs signed by both the par'ties, but the list Annexure .A did not contained th6 signature of the respondent- 9. The oppeltcLit has "ot explained the fact that why she has "ot filed the list which was prepared at •fte time of mar'riage and why she has withhold the moter'iQl docui^ent which was sufficsent for drcrwir*< inferenc^ th<xt soms ciirticles wer<s <3iyen to 'rfis rssDon^snt at the 0,^ time of "'arr'iage. Sanesh Singh (PW-4) has spe':ifica!!y admitted in PQFQ 11 of his cross-%xcEinis^rttJG'p ll^at hs hcs prspar^d the list but he has deDosed that the list. he has not oreoared the !ist 'fAnnexure AV Ths aosellQ^t hos not fii'sd <2ny ccxsh tTisrp.o or docnm8nt febttln^ to Dur'chQS^ of Qrtlclss liks T.V. s!?^irQ. boiubSs bsd. coHar stc. 10-Ths bufds" to DFOV^ ths fo.c't thrtt .St^dhsn^^/^ b'sen csvs" is on th® appel'tmt. The appeilont has not flied !!st of ar'ticles which was prepar'ed at the t'me of marricge. The appeilant hns not fiied any receipt or cash merno rebting to purchase the ar-ticies. Even she has not exDlcxtnec! when sh<£ hft5 Dr^nc>r*ed l4ie Isst of srticlss .Annexur®-A ny\d OH whrtt baS'S sh©hcis Drsgar'ed the !ist of articles A?i!'>leyur*e A. 11. In the absence of a"y prove of fact that the appe!la"t and her fami!y 'nen'bers have giyen Stridhan to the respondent and the respondent has not returned the same, the Court below has dismissed the suit fi!ed on behttlf of the appellant. Taking into considerat'on the facts and c!''cu!nsta"ces of the case, we are of the considered yiew 1+'at lear'ned Judge, Family Cour't has not committed any itlegaiity in dis?nissin/3 tii$ su!t i" the cbsence of proye of facts. 12. For- ttie foregoing reasons, we do "ot find any substance in this oppea!. The cppea! !B 'iable to be dismissed and it is hereby disn'issed. No ordsr o-s to costs. becr'ee be drawn up ciccordingly. Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhaiiwar B/-