flKW.VMK- ^ssx-ie.c;^ ^'s;".-. « ^. /'^ss& ' '^. !v'f ^SS-i. '& •? ^ .;.;(&^::'^. M i %sfy'K.: ii MiQHCOURT 0= CHHATTiSSARH_AT Bii-ASPHB •^r^ First ADpeaii'iWssc.) of 20- Appslsant (Non-applicant) 'r^'-s.nrir'? u^n a S,'o Kumar Vishwanath Dahariya, aged about 26 years,,R;'o Near Gattanl High Schooi, Janjgir, Tahs'l and District Janjgir Champa (CG). 'i/erati's Smt.Rakhs, aged about 23 years, W/o Bhupendra Dahariya, at present R/o M- 816, Adarsh Nagar, Kusrr.unda, Tah. Katghora, Dist.Korba (CG). (First appeai under Ssctson 19 (1) o the Famliy Courts Act, 1984) DB: Hon'bte Mr.T.P.Sharraa e i.ri^r*>T :i^t iSuiei ii, ,rt?^^ ll^r SS i .l^a^'^-r J .S 'it i eji'3w ifiii *r^i&».^ji^ii¥¥saii ^.^. Prssent:- iifii S>. »-* Tiv.'ari. couRsel forthe None presentforthe respondsnt. n",. [Passed ors 29"'.Juty, 2010) ltB<3.i.i!i!fa,_J. 1. By this appeai, the appeliant has chalienged ihe isgality & propriety of the judgmsnt & dscre® datsd 7.1.2010 passeci by ths Jisdge, Famiiy Court, Csmp Court, Katghora, in Case No.2B/07, whereby ihe Judge, Famiiy Court has decreed the suit foi- return of property under Section 27 of the Hlndu' Marriags Act, 1S55 (in short 'the Act, 1955'). 2. Jtidgment £decree are impugned on ihe ground that 'A'ifhout any proof, the Judge, Famiiy Court has decress the suit and fhereby connmltisd iliegalifr,. 3. Brief facts necessa"^ for dlsposal of this appsai are that partiss are Hlnd'uS and iegaily 'A'edded spouses. Thelr marriage has beeri dissoived by a decree of divoree. The rescondent hss filed the oetltion und-er Section 27 of ihe Act, 1955 for return of hsr Stridhan shown in Scheduie "A" which has been denied •by the present appeilant. After providing opportunity of 'nearing to the parties, the Judgs, FamiSy Court has decreed the suit for retur", of the propertles, sspecsaiiy shown in Scheduls "A" as Stridhan. ^«?T A^^ '• 'S! : ^ /' ^-^'•" ,s' -,^%: ';s»a.,As^ •2-- Afisr sepi'ice of Rotics/summon io the resoondsnt. shs has noi rrsads her appearance. 5. VVe have he3.rd iearned counssl for the appeiiant, psrused the judgmsnt & decree impugned and record ofthe Famiiy Court. S. Learnsd COURSS', for the appeiiani submits that as per the pQtition of the responcient, she has claimed ror refurn of her SWsihan whlch wss her exciusive propesty undsr Sectioii 27 ofthe Act, 1955 and ihe Judge, Famiiy Court hss directed to return of fhe aiieged Strsshan of ihe rsspondeni. !ri accordance v.'ith Seciion 27 of the Acf, 1955. ths Court bsio'A' was not compeient to pass any decree for reiurn of Stridhan, aithough ihe Famiiy Court vvas connpetsnt to decide and pass the dscree of propsrty beionging to the respondent as Stridhan ursder the provisions of the Famiiy Courts Act, 1984 (in short 'the Act, 1984'), but not in terms of Secflon 27 of the Act, f ths Act. iSSo, 7. in orser to appreciate tha arguments advanced on behaif of the appeiianf, we have examined the iegai propositions and facSual mairix ofthe case. 8. Admittediy, as per petiilon of the rsspondent, she has fiied petitson under Secfion 27 of the Act, 1955 for return of her Stridhan. Para 7 of ths pstltlon reads as undsr:- '<I1^ T^, 3i1aii4<<€p ^^T'<T ^i^cii ^l ^ii-4i ^^' ^|^^-<j ^isfj <%iTK|^J ^? ^eT t. l^ft Itsrf^ ^ 3!i^Piq»! ^T 3i*iSqr;<» ^ we? ^ f liqi^ i^<£ll y|!'rtl ti^<1 y<1KI v^^[, vvfs Slflif^i &{tf ^PT^T i^<sl^ |q'^y ^ "^T '<^l iyidi T^I^II^I^I cpc.^jSKi lcpvui snfSjfl ^. ^ft 'S^iRf ''T STq?^"T. SF?rt~<Tg? '^' ^t Vf^ 'o^ F-T 'S^, ~^s S-.MV'1. '"PR .A..y 9. The Judge, Farrsiiy Court has specfficaiiy framed issue No.2 resatsng to sntSiement of Stna'nan which reads as under:- ^??T ^T^T^^s" ^F'KiT v@^i ^Fi^? '^H^f 3T?i?^^^ '?lit'r^ %'t~llx ^ ^^ iqqTgiq<i(j u{( -STZIT '5ti fw t-jl6i<1 3'iq<;i 'TO 'S1 Si^g-qt "•3" 'if ^isiej s. 'u^' 3ij,4Rq»i ^Ntft 'T!^3t. '<T?ft '^tE3^? ~^ SPT^ ''TTij^ ~^ '5iT ^st t f ^'IQ '^j' ^fj ~-"^t> i.a 'isi iO.Ciause (1) of para 22 of fhe judgmenf and clause (1) of the decree rsveai thai the judge, FamHy Court has decreed the suit for refurn of fhe ariicies EEh. t.^-... ^••^ R/- —S-; ; .;. ' • v • shown i". Schsduis "A" which is as per issue and pleadings of the partios shewn as Stridhan. 11.8cope ofSection 27 ofthe Act, 1955 is iimitsd and only propsrty presented, at or about the fime of marriage bslonging to both the husband and the wife jointly, may be reiumed to any of ths party. Section 27 of ths Act, 1955 rsads as under:- "27. Disposai of propsrty.-jn a,"y proceeding under this Acf, ihs Court msy mske such provisions in ths decree ss if deems just and propsr wifh respect to any property presented, at or about the tim®of marriage, which may beiong joiRtiy to both the husband and the 'A'ife." 12.3ection 27 of the Act, 1955 does not maks the parises entitisd for return of his or her exciusive propsrty not belongirsg to both l.e. husband and wife, aithough ihe Farrsiiy CourS is competent to decide the suii reiating to property of the parties of the marriage or of sither of them in ferms of Explanation (c) of sub-sectiori (1) ofSeciion 7 oftheAct, 1984which reads as unasr:- "Expianation (c) a suit or procseding between ths parties io a mamage with respeci to ihe property of t'ne partles or of sithsr of them:" 13.Admitted!y, the respondent v.'as required to fiie civss suit for rsturn of her property in terms of Expianation (c) of sub-section (1) of SectiQn 7 of ths Act, 1884, but she was rsot eniltisd for reiurn of her Stridhan under ths proviston; of Section 27 ofthe Act. 1955. 14.VVhite decreeing the sult for return of Sfsidhan under Section 27 of the Act, 1955, the Judge Famiiy Court has commiited IsiegaSiiy. Th®judgment & dscree impugned are noi sustainabie underthe saw ana same are liabieto bs set aside. 15.For ihe foregoirsg reasons, the appeai ss aSso'A'ed. iSudgment & decree impugned are hereby set aside. Suit fiiea by ihe respondent under Section 27 of the Act, 1955 for return of Stridhan is dlsmissed; Parties shail bear thesr own costs. Sd-/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge