i YHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON’BLE HON’BLE SHRI SHRI T.P.SHARMA R.L.JHANWAR, AND JJ. F.A. §Ml No. 68 of 2007 Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay, aged about 32 years, S/o Shri Ram Ashray Upadhyay, resident of Duggupara Balco Nagar, Korba, Ponce Station Balco, Tahsil & District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Anupma Upadhyay, aged about 26 years, W/o Shri Rakesh Upadhyay, Rlo Duggupara Balco Nagar, Korba, presentiy residing a1 Piot No. 787, ajendra Prasad Nagar, Kosabadi, Korba, Tahsil & District — Korba (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 11) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 Smt Renu Kochar, counsei for the appeilant. Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the respondent. PPELLANT ON-APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT ORAL JUDGMENT (Passed on 17.08.2010) y T.P. The foilowing oral judgment of the Court was passed b Sharma, J. Chailenge in this appeai is the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2007 passed by the Judge, Famiiy Court, Korba in Civil [2006 whereby partial decree of Rs.34,105l- has Miscellaneous Suit No. 16 been awarded against the appellant in favour of respondent/wife. d decree is impugned on the ground that without below decreed 2. The‘judgment an ntitlement for return of property, the Court the suit partially and has committed illegality. any proof of the e se of the parties is that parties are parties are governed by I me of marriage, some property including household articles and an amount of Rs.1,85,000/— 3. Brief ca Hindu law and are legally wedded spouses. At the ti R A N were given by the respondent/wife to the appellant as Stridhan. The present appellant ha not been given to him at or about the time of marriage, therefor pendent/wife is not entitled for recovery of property from 4. s denied the claim and has alleged that property has e, the him. he learned t to the extent of 05 by SmtfRen ar, lre unsel for the appellant and Shri Sunil t are heard. Judgment and ahu, learned cosel f t rsonden ecre nd record of te Court below erse. 6 n d als 490 as te a de te t Learned counsel for t propert shOW in Ex. is founded ndent is 7. y n but as egar‘d unfoun E ,71/— s the propert mentioned in EX.P.6 the claim of respo ed; Trefore, the resndent i not entitled for property shown in res After affording opportunity and hearing the parties, t Judge, Family Court has partially decreed the sui Rs.34,1/- which shall be payable the appellant, 5. u Koch eand co S un or he ep de a h pud . The respodent ha o preferred an appeal being F.A.(M) No. /208 gaint h partil cree to h une of Rs.34,165/-,' which has been ithdra y th resndnt on .08.2010. wWn b e poe 17 , appelnt submits that as regards the P. and Ex.P.5, the claim of respondent r d he po s x.P.6 to the rune of Rs.145. On the other hand earned counse for the respondent opposed the ap As pe eviece o pie it reveas that property shown in Ex.P.4, 8. peal. 9. ‘ r dn f arts, l Ex.P.5 and Ex.P. wa give at the tim of marriage to both the parties by d friends. lt is not the case where 6 s n e the parents of respondents, rative an cash memo or permanent voucher can be obtained relating to purchase of _ each artcle at the time o marriae and on on the ground of absence of n dumentary dence lai the parties is well founded on the ral evnc co b eed. Te evidenCe adduced on behalf 5I- was given to both the arents, relatives and friends, and as s e ele ba of sis o of h arties is uffiient for ing an inference that property shown in Ex.P.4, Ex.P. an E.P.6 ting R.34,10 5 d x cos s parties at the ti o riag y th r rcover Rs.34,105/-. uch, the respondnt is ntitd fo he la 4 y , l l el i f g ly ay oc evi cm of idee annt e dni h te p sc draw me f mare b e p ey of 1 0. We do not find any illegality in judgment and decree impugned relating to return of aforesaid property. 1 Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit. is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge \JUIJU E 1. \ ‘