. "\ ^i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble ShriR.N. Chandrakar, JJ Appellant Plaintiff Respondent First Appeal (Ml No. 124 of 2008 Smt. HarGouri Dubey -Versus- Bhardwaj Dubey Judament For Consideratlon Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Hon'bLeShri R.N. Chandrakar, J y <2t^ Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ,^. Post for Judament on 1U June.2010 . Sd/- 1 r %s:^^' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ FirstAppeal (M) No. 124of2008 Appellant Plaintiff Smt. HarGouri Dubey, W/o Bhardwaj Dubey, aged about 25 years, R/o Village Putkapuri, P.S. Pussore, Tahsil •& District Raigarh (CG) -Versus- Respondent Bhardwaj Dubey, S/o Subhash Dubey, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Bhatvidai, Post Lebari, P.S. Suhela, Tahsil & District Bargarh (Orissa) Present: Shri Amit Sharma, counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent. JUDGMENT (Delivered on It^une, 2010) ' Per Dhirendra Mishra. J The appellant-wife has preferred this appeal under Section 19(1) ofthe Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 14th March, 2008 passed in Civil Suit No.43A/07, whereby learned Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, while passing a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act") on the application ofthe appellant, has rejected her prayer for return of articles given in dowry, and has also rejected her claim for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act. 02. Briefly stated, necessary facts for adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant filed a divorce petition with the averments that the respondent's behaviour towards her was cruel right from the beginning of their marital life, "y he compelled her to engage^ in unnatural sex and beat her on several occasions; because of his cruel acts, she suffered physicaland mental agony; her application under Section 10 of the Act was allowed and a decree of judicial separation was passed in her favour. She also pleaded that at the time of marriage, her parents had given her certain articles, which she had taken to Bhatveeda; because ofthe cruel behaviour of her husband, it is not possible to lead a peaceful martial life and in these circumstances, she is entitled for a F ^ decree of divorce and she is also entitled for return of the articles, which were given to her as Stridhan at the time of marriage. 03. The respondent, in his written statement, denied the allegations in the divorce petition. 04. On the basis of pleadings of the respective parties, issues were framed. The appellant examined herself, her witnesses Phoolsai, Hemant Tripathi, Shyambai and Rambharos Sharma in support of her divorce petition, whereas the respondent examined himself, his witnesses Radheshyam Dubey, Shivprakash Patel, Mukta Dubey, Membai Dubey and Ishwarchand Patel. 05. Learned Family Court, by the impugned judgment, allowed the application of the appellant and granted a decree of divorce in her favour. However, her prayer for return of the articles given in dowryas Stridhan has been rejected with a finding that Ex.P/1 - list of articles of dowry - does not bear signature of the husband or any of his family members; there is no acknowledgement by the husband that the aforesaid articles were received as dowry, and the evidence adduced by the appellant in this regard is not reliable. Similarly, her prayer for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act has also been rej'ected on the ground that she is earning Rs. 1300-1400/- per month as school teacher, whereas the respondent is an unemployed person, having educational qualification of 10-12th only and he does not have any source of livelihood. 06. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the document of Ex.P/1 is a list of articles of dowry given to the appellant at the time' of her marriage. The aforesaid document has been duly proved by the appellant as Ex.P/1. Her above version stands unrebutted in her cross-examination. Her witness Phoolsai (AW-2) has also deposed about dowry of Rs.51,000/-, motorcycle andother artictes at the time of marriage. His above yersion has also not been challenged by the husband in his cross-examination. The other witness examined by the appellant namely Radheshyam Sharma (AW-4) has also supported the contention of the appellant that dowry of Rs.51,000/-, motorcycle and other articles were given to her at the time of marriage. Even the respondent-husband, in paras 5 & 13 of his deposition, has admitted that the articles mentioned in the list of Ex.P/1, were received by him, except the amount of Rs.51,000/- mentioned at SI.No.2, the articles mentioned at SI.Nos.11, 13, 14, 18,20&SI.No.22. ^'^"4."% ^r 07. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record, including the impugned judgment. 08. The short question for our consideration is - whether learned Family Court was justified in rejecting the prayer of the appellant for returnof Stridhan? 09. The appellant has pleaded and proved that the articles, described in Ex.P/1, were given to her as dowry at the time of marriage. Learned Family Court has rejected the said list of articles of dowry on the ground that it does not bear signature of the respondent or any of his family members and there is no acknowledgment that these articles were, in fact, given at the time of marriage and received by the respondent. We find substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that the witnesses, who have deposed about the articles of dowry given to the appellant at the time of marriage, have not been cross-examined by the respondent and on the contrary, the respondent has himself accepted that he received the articles mentioned in Ex.P/1, except the articles marked by "red cross". Thus, in view of the unrebutted oral evidence available qn record, particularly admission of the respondent-husband, learned Family Court was not justified in rejecting the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant in this regard. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we partfy allow this appeal and direct the respondent-husband to return the articles of dowry given to the appellant at the time of her marriage, which are described in the document of Ex.P/1 & admitted by the respondent in his deposition, except the articles mentioned at SI.Nos. 2, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20 &22ofEx.P/1. No order as to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^l