C.R. No.3689 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3689 of 2007 Date of Decision:17.09.2009 Anita .....Petitioner Versus Rakesh ...Respondent Present: Mr.Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The revision is against a portion of the decree that disentitled a wife's claim for stridhana articles said to be in the custody of the husband, while granting a decree for divorce as sought for by her against her husband. An independent application had been filed under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act for recovery of dowry articles. She had averred in the application that those articles belonged to her exclusively and they had been taken custody of by the husband. While deciding issue No.2 relating to the entitlement of the plaintiff, the Court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish which particular articles were still in the custody of the respondent as stridhana. While granting the relief of divorce, it did not specifically state anywhere the fate of the application filed by the wife under Section 27. The revision, however, was filed on the basis that the wife's claim had been impliedly rejected inasmuch as the final decree, which was drafted C.R. No.3689 of 2007 -2- related only to the grant of a decree for dissolution of marriage. 2. Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as follows:- "27. Disposal of property. - In any proceeding under this Act, the court may make such provisions in the decree as it deems just and proper with respect to any property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife." The direction for disposal that a Matrimonial Court could grant shall be only in relation to the property which may belong jointly to both the husband and wife. An exclusive property to one of the spouses cannot be a subject of a direction under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It has also been so held by a decision in Subhash Lata Vs. V.N. Khanna AIR 1992 Delhi 14 that spells out that Section 27 is attracted only to cases where the property is presented at or about the time of marriage that belonged jointly to both spouses. The averments in the petition seeking for a direction under Section 27 were themselves sufficient to reject the application as not maintainable for, it was on the basis that the stridhana articles belonged exclusively to the wife. 4. The revision deserves a dismissal on the ground that application filed before the Court below was not maintainable. The civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed accordingly. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 17, 2009 Pankaj*